Tools and Teaching Strategies for Vocabulary

Assessment and Instruction: A Review

Emilie Dujardin, Pauline Auphan, Nicolas Bailloud, Jean Ecalle, Annie
Magnan

To cite this version:

Emilie Dujardin, Pauline Auphan, Nicolas Bailloud, Jean Ecalle, Annie Magnan. Tools and Teaching
Strategies for Vocabulary Assessment and Instruction: A Review. Social Education Research, 2021,
pp.34 - 66. �10.37256/ser.3120221044�. �hal-03903103�

HAL Id: hal-03903103

https://hal.science/hal-03903103
Submitted on 16 Dec 2022

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est

archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de
teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés.
Social Education Research
http://ojs.wiserpub.com/index.php/SER/

Review

Tools and Teaching Strategies for Vocabulary Assessment and Instruction:

A Review

E. Dujardin1,2* , P. Auphan1,2, N. Bailloud1, 3, J. Ecalle1 , A. Magnan1

1
Laboratory EMC, EMC (EA 3085)-MSH LSE (USR CNRS 2005)-University Lyon 2 and LabEx CORTEX ANR-11-LABX-0042,
University Lyon, France
2
Association Agir Pour l’Ecole-Paris, France
3
Canopé-Lyon, France
E-mail: [email protected]

Received: 16 July 2021; Revised: 17 November 2021; Accepted: 20 November 2021

Abstract: Vocabulary is a complex intermediate component between oral and written language, which the influence on
associated skills and general language abilities (e.g., decoding processing, comprehension) has been largely studied in
children, suggesting its important role in literacy. The main aim of this article is to review some questions on vocabulary
assessment and stimulation in children and identify the advantage of new technologies for evaluating and training
vocabulary. It seems necessary to give the importance of vocabulary in language and literacy development, and the
heterogeneity of vocabulary acquisition, depending on preschool word exposure (e.g., familial environment). After
a state-of-the-art of conceptualization of vocabulary’s notion, we revisit assumptions on vocabulary assessment and
instruction indicating the main existing tools. This review lies in the attempt to enhance perspectives for new valid and
effective tools using digital technologies.

Keywords: vocabulary, children, assessment, digital tool, teaching

1. Introduction
Vocabulary research has greatly expanded over the last three decades. Vocabulary is a multidimensional
intermediate component between oral and written language (i.e. from decoding to comprehension). Numerous studies
have demonstrated the impact of vocabulary on associated skills, such as general language abilities (Brinchmann et al.,
2015), decoding processing (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012), comprehension (Cain & Oakhill, 2014; Ouellette & Beers,
2010; Quinn et al., 2015). Recent research cites developmental influences to explain the weight of vocabulary variation
on these associated skills. When one starts to learn to read, vocabulary seems to contribute to decoding to consolidate
the links among the three levels of word representation (i.e., orthographic, phonological, and semantic), but once these
links are sufficiently consolidated with the acquisition of a high-quality lexicon, the link between vocabulary and
decoding apparently disappears (Chiu, 2018; Massonnié et al., 2019) and vocabulary would then predict comprehension
performance (Ouellette & Beers, 2010; Tilstra et al., 2009). Moreover, the link between vocabulary and associated skills
(i.e., language and literacy skills) would be bi-directional. For example, vocabulary in young French students from
grade 2 seemingly predicts decoding and reading performance and conversely, performance in decoding would predict

Copyright ©2021 E. Dujardin, et al.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.37256/ser.3120221044
This is an open-access article distributed under a CC BY license
(Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License)
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

Social Education Research 34 | E. Dujardin, et al.

vocabulary performance (Potocki et al., 2016; Verhoeven et al., 2011). Further research is required to understand the
role (causal or not (Quinn et al., 2015)), direct influence (Tunmer & Chapman, 2012) or indirect influence (Elwér et al.,
2013; Ouellette & Beers, 2010), and the weight of vocabulary on associated skills. Despite the ongoing questions on the
link between vocabulary and the other associated skills, there is currently a consensus on the importance of vocabulary
in reading (Braze et al., 2016; Colenbrander et al., 2016; Perfetti et al., 2010; Oakhill et al., 2019) and it is essential to
define what vocabulary corresponds to.
This article aims to provide a review of questions on the assessment and instruction of vocabulary in children,
by revisiting assumptions on vocabulary assessment and instruction. First, we provide an overview of assumptions on
vocabulary assessment and instruction. Second, we present the main tools that exist in different languages. Our review
has been led to answer the following main research question: What is the advantage of new technologies for evaluating
and training vocabulary. The added value of this review lies in the attempt to enhance perspectives for new valid and
effective tools using digital technologies. Indeed, standardized presentation of items or precise recording of different
kinds of measures are two characteristics of digital technologies that improve the validity and reliability of assessment
(Terzis & Economides, 2011). Moreover, computer-based tools offer the opportunity to multiply and maximize learning
sessions through autonomy in learning and appropriate and systematic feedback provided individually (Van der Kleij et
al., 2015).
Without claiming to be a systematic review, this article reviews some questions on research on vocabulary
assessment and instruction. It seems necessary to give the importance of vocabulary in language and literacy
development and the heterogeneity of vocabulary acquisition that depends on preschool word exposure mainly in
a family environment (Biemiller, 2006). Children exposed to language with poor vocabulary will experience more
difficulties than their peers exposed to rich vocabulary in developing general language skills, learning to read and even
learning the meanings of new words (Webb & Chang, 2015). Since the link goes both ways, children with language and
literacy difficulties will then have greater difficulties in vocabulary learning than their peers who do not have language
and literacy difficulties, thus illustrating the Matthew effect in vocabulary growth (Coyne et al., 2010).
Early vocabulary assessment and instruction, therefore, seem essential to reduce inequalities. To answer the
main research question, after providing a brief definition of the complex concept of vocabulary, we present the main
tools for assessing the various dimensions of vocabulary children across different languages. We then elaborate on the
implications of vocabulary instruction and the associated recommendations.
In our current review, we have included research articles, book chapters, literature reviews, and meta-analyses,
which cover a long period from 1982 to 2019 and provide insights into the evolution of vocabulary-related definitions,
assessment and instruction. Thus, we identified 30 tests or subtests for vocabulary assessment or stimulation across
different languages, suggesting that there is international interest in investigating the issue of vocabulary (see Appendix
A for a summary of the referenced tests and subtests). Finally, to understand the evolution of vocabulary instruction, we
identified 34 articles (corresponding to 43 studies; see Appendix B for more details).

2. What is vocabulary? An overview

2.1 Which definition?
The notion of “vocabulary” is expressed in different terms that must be clearly distinguished: the lexicon, word
knowledge and vocabulary. The mental lexicon corresponds to the place (Ouellette, 2006) where word knowledge is
stored. Word knowledge designates the information on the words (in particular orthographic, phonological, semantic,
as well as general information associated with the target word (Perfetti & Hart, 2002). Finally, vocabulary refers to the
grouping of knowledge presenting in the mental lexicon added to the processes that control the speed of access to that
knowledge (Oakhill et al., 2012).

2.2 Conceptualizing vocabulary: A multifaceted concept

The concept of vocabulary is multifaceted. Broad and numerous conceptualizations have been described to
characterize it to answer the following question: What does “knowing a word” mean? Four main conceptualizations

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 35 Social Education Research

are used to specify vocabulary. The most common conceptualization is to make a distinction between the breadth (i.e.,
the number of words known by a subject) and the depth ((i.e., the quality of knowledge associated with the words) of
vocabulary (Qian, 1999; Schmitt, 2014). Different types of associated knowledge can be considered on a continuum
from superficial to deep. For example, knowledge can be syntagmatic (i.e., referring to properties of the object
designated by the word) or paradigmatic (i.e., hierarchical vertical dimensions such as subordinate or superordinate
levels) (Schwartz & Katzir, 2012). As described in Ordóñez et al. (2002), paradigmatic knowledge is for older subjects
with higher school levels in relation with, for example, ‘cognitive advances’ or classroom instruction (Anglin et al.,
1993; Snow, 1990).
Another distinction is made between declarative or procedural vocabulary knowledge (Nagy & Scott, 2000; Read,
2004). Declarative knowledge is currently described and is consciously and verbally accessible. Procedural knowledge
rather refers to the implicit knowledge allowing children to appropriately and fluently pronounce and use words in
context. Declarative knowledge could then imply “knowing a word” whereas procedural knowledge would imply
“knowing how to use a word”, representing a deeper level of vocabulary knowledge.
Three other main conceptualizations can be described. (a) The breadth and depth of vocabulary knowledge can be
outranked from a network organization perspective (Meara & Wolter, 2004). Quality of word knowledge depends on
the ability to link this word with a multitude of other words (breadth) in a coherent semantic organization (depth) such
as collocations, synonyms or antonyms. A wider and better organized lexical network will facilitate rapid understanding
and use of words in context. (b) Fluency is also a dimension that will represent vocabulary knowledge quality but there
is no consensus on the way it should be conceptualized: As a part of depth (Segalowitz et al., 1998) or as an independent
dimension in addition to size and depth (Daller et al., 2007). (c) Finally, Kieffer and Lesaux (2012) proposed another
conceptualization sometimes seen as competing with the breadth versus depth distinction but that could also be
thought of as being complementary. They distinguished between word-specific knowledge (i.e., linguistic knowledge
of individual word meanings) and word-general knowledge (i.e., awareness of morphology). Word-general knowledge
implies knowledge of “the system by which complex words are formed from smaller meaningful units that contribute to
their meanings and syntactic functions” (Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012), for a description of morphological considerations and
(Gardner, 2007). Word-general knowledge could eventually be related to strategies for learning vocabulary as presented
in some studies such as Schmitt (2014).

Table 1. Conceptualizations on vocabulary depending on dimensions and task characteristics

Vocabulary dimensions Task characteristics

Breadth (number of words known) versus Depth

(quality of knowledge, from superficial-syntagmatic Oral versus written
and/or declarative-to deep-paradigmatic and/or procedural-knowledge) (Nation, 2001)
(Schmitt, 2014)

Network organization Receptive (passive) versus productive (active)

(quantity and quality of word and concept links) (Nation, 2001)
(Meara & Wolter, 2004)

Fluency
(speed of access, between the flexibility of representation levels) Contextualized versus decontextualized (Read, 2000)
(Daller et al., 2007)

Word general (vocabulary breadth) Discrete (vocabulary as an independent construct)

versus word specific knowledge versus embedded
(words targeting a specific field) (vocabulary as part of a larger construct)
(Kieffer & Lesaux, 2012) (Coombe, 2011)

Selective (vocabulary assessment only)

versus comprehensive
(vocabulary items in another cognitive assessment)
(Pearson et al., 2007)

Note: See Appendix A for more details about vocabulary dimension assessment

Social Education Research 36 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 But the vocabulary can also be characterized by the following distinctions that relate to task characteristics.
Indeed, the task can imply different types of input and output such as oral as opposed to written, and receptive (passive)
as opposed to productive (active) vocabulary (Nation, 2001). These two parameters enable a distinction to be made
between four competencies described in the National Reading Panel (NICHD, 2000) (National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development (NICHD)): Listening (oral and receptive), reading (written and receptive), speaking (oral
and productive) and writing (written and productive). In general, children exhibit a larger receptive vocabulary than
productive vocabulary (i.e., understand more words than they use) (Pearson et al., 2007). As described in Read (2000),
a task can also include a word in context (contextualized) or presented in isolation (decontextualized). Moreover, a task
can examine vocabulary as an independent construct (discrete vocabulary) or as a part of another cognitive construct
such as reading comprehension for example (embedded vocabulary) (Coombe, 2011), or evaluate vocabulary for itself
(selective) or in the case of more general tasks (comprehensive) (Pearson et al., 2007). Seeing Table 1 for a recap of
vocabulary conceptualizations.

2.3 Summary
To go beyond the multiple and sometimes concurrent ways of conceptualizing vocabulary, the choice was made
in this review to target the objective justifying the evaluation and training of vocabulary, for example, through the
associated skills in which it participates. Indeed, knowing words is in itself a multiple concept involving the ability
to: recognize and decode them rapidly (e.g., in breadth, decontextualized and discrete dimensions) that implies firstly
linking the three levels of representation of the word described in the lexical quality hypothesis (Perfetti & Hart, 2002)
and secondly the speed of access from one to the other (e.g., fluency and network organization dimensions). Knowing
words requires understanding them in context (e.g., breadth and depth, contextualized, embedded, and receptive
dimensions as well as word-general dimensions) in order to enhance the text comprehension processes and use them
appropriately to express ideas (e.g., breadth and depth, contextualized, embedded, and expressive dimensions).

3. How to assess vocabulary? A literature review

3.1 What research shows?
The complexity of vocabulary implies complex assessment. One test is not enough to determine the vocabulary
level because of the multiple facets of vocabulary. Different points need to be resolved when dealing with vocabulary
assessment. First, which dimensions need to be assessed? Then, which test format should be used to examine
vocabulary? Those questions are interrelated in the sense that the assessment test format will depend on the dimension
to be assessed.

3.2 Which dimensions need to be assessed?

Beyond the distinction described, i.e. breadth as opposed to depth (Laufer & Goldstein, 2004; Qian & Schedl,
2004), selective as opposed to embedded (Coombe, 2011), or specific versus general word knowledge (Kieffer &
Lesaux, 2012), vocabulary assessment is primarily divided into two parts: assessing vocabulary knowledge (i.e., type of
knowledge about words) as opposed to assessing vocabulary learning (i.e., the ability to learn new words). The choice
of dimension to be assessed will depend on the goal. For example, following an intervention, it could be interesting to
assess specific word knowledge (adapted assessment depending on the material taught) associated with an assessment
of general word knowledge (standardized test) in order to measure acquisition of targeted words taught and meta-
competencies to learn new words (Tseng et al., 2006).
In recent reviews on vocabulary assessment, authors recommended assessing both breadth and depth of vocabulary
as well as both word-specific learning and general vocabulary development (Hoffman et al. (2014) in early childhood)
and, assessing target words in isolation, then in a context to measure whether they can be understood during reading and
whether they possibly enable more general text comprehension (Kremmel & Schmitt, 2016).

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 37 Social Education Research

3.3 Which test format to examine vocabulary knowledge?
A large variety of test formats are currently used depending on the dimension chosen to assess vocabulary (see
Table 2 for a summary of the pros and cons of each test format). Moreover, the choice of test format will depend in part
on the population to be assessed. For example, the production of definitions that are then scored by practitioners are
better for younger children (<10 years old), since it appears as a more concrete task, and multiple-choice formats seem
better for older (>10 years old) who prefer more abstract and analytic tasks (Read, 2004).

Table 2. Advantages and disadvantages of each test format

Test format Description Advantages Disadvantages References

- Does not take polysemy into account

Scale administered to test- - Assesses different depths of word - Long to administer Dale (1965);
Knowledge takers in order to get their knowledge: from recognizing a word to - Difficulties in scoring productive Paribakht &
scale own thoughts about being able to use it appropriately answers that measure more Wesche (1993)
knowledge of targeted words - Interesting for targeted words in-depth vocabulary knowledge

Multiple Correctly paired items from - Rapid and easy to administer and score - Discrete, context independent
matching two different list of items - Objective - Guessing behavior (can be Gyllstad et al.,
- Large number of items possibly diminished using “various number (2015); Kremmel
administered in a short period of time
Multiple Selecting the one right answer - Widespread familiarity of correct answers”) & Schmitt (2016)
choice to a question from distractors - Distractors choices
- Vocabulary size

- Scoring: an answer can be correct

Completing a text with Harsch & Hartig
C-test - Productive and in context but not match teachers expectation
missing words (2016)
and targeted assessment

Harsch & Hartig

- Rapid and easy to administer - Low sensitivity, reliability and
Answering questions with (2016);
Yes/no test - Interpreting hits and false alarm validity due to 50%
yes or no Hoffman et al.
separately can increase reliability chance of correct answers (2014)

- More subjective
Open-ended Answering questions or Scalise & Gifford
- In-depth vocabulary assessment - Long to administer
questions generating definitions (2006)
- Complex and long to score

Note: C-test = Cloze test

3.3.1 Receptive size test formats

Standardized vocabulary size tests (e.g. multiple choice or multiple matching) are the most common due to the
objectivity, reliability and validity they offer. However, these kinds of tests have drawbacks. Firstly, standardized tests
do not enable specific words taught during instruction to be assessed. Assessing word learning after instruction will
require the test to be adapted to the material taught resulting in a decrease in validity and reliability (Hoffman et al.,
2014; Watkins & DeThorne, 2000). Secondly, even if this enhanced objective scoring and reliability, these tests are
based on a forced-choice format that can encourage guessing behavior leading to biased test results (Gyllstad et al.,
2015). Nevertheless, guessing behavior can be limited using varying and unknown number of correct answers, and
interpreted as indicators of learning or processing strategies by tracking test takers’ behavior.
Another kind of forced-choice format is the Yes-No format. Despite the advantage of rapid and easy administration,
this format gives a 50% chance of correct random responses, impacting the sensitivity of the task (Hoffman et al., 2014)
and interpretation of results (Pellicer-Sánchez & Schmitt, 2012; Stubbe, 2012). However, interpreting hits and false
alarm scores separately could increase reliability (Harsch & Hartig, 2016).

3.3.2 Productive depth test formats

Knowledge scales consist of self-assessment of vocabulary knowledge. They enable a distinction to be made
between recognizing the word and being able to use it appropriately in context (Paribakht & Wesche, 1993). Therefore,

Social Education Research 38 | E. Dujardin, et al.

these tests are a good way to assess the depth of vocabulary and offer the opportunity to be easily adaptable to targeted
taught words. However, they have two main drawbacks: Firstly, since different levels of vocabulary knowledge (from
breadth to depth) are assessed item by item, the vocabulary scale is then long to administer. Secondly, the greater the
vocabulary depth, the more difficult it is to score.
Cloze tests (or C-tests) consist of text with missing words to be found. They can be administered in multiple-choice
or free answer formats. In the case of the free answer format, the advantage is that this is a productive task provided in
context. However, this is also a disadvantage since the subject’s answer may be correct, but may not be the one expected
by the teacher (targeting words taught). Finally, open-ended questions favor an assessment of vocabulary depth, but are
complex to score and can appear as being more subjective. Therefore, open-ended tasks cannot be standardized.

3.4 Summary
Assessing vocabulary requires using not only one test but a battery of tests to assess different dimensions
(size, depth, fluency), using different cognitive parameters (oral or written, receptive or productive) and conditions
(contextualized or decontextualized, discrete or embedded) as well as assessing specific words or general words and
also vocabulary learning strategies. Another difficulty lies in producing “intermediate constraint” items (for a review
of the different kinds of items depending on their constraint level, refer to Scalise & Gifford (2006)) that are not fully
selective (like multiple-choice tasks) or constructed (like open-ended questions or essays). Indeed, items that only
require selecting an answer offer the advantage of being easily scored and objective but can overestimate subjects’
performances due to guessing behavior. Moreover, they usually give more information about vocabulary size than depth.
Inversely, tasks that require building the answer from scratch are complex and more subjective to score but can provide
more information on vocabulary depth and prevent guessing behavior.

4. Existing tools for assessing vocabulary

4.1 General measures of the breadth of vocabulary
The breadth of vocabulary is simple to conceptualize because it refers to the number of lexical items stored in the
lexicon. Standardized measures of breadth usually test the connection between the form and meaning of words. The
purpose of this section is not to provide an exhaustive list of all existing tests but to identify the most frequently used
ones in different languages (see Appendix A).
Two measures of the breadth of an individual’s vocabulary are identified in the literature Receptive vocabulary
measures assess the connection between the form and the meaning of words, and expressive vocabulary measures assess
the connection between the meaning and form of a word. The British Picture Vocabulary Scale (BPVS) (Dunn et al.,
2009) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) (Dunn & Dunn, 2007) are the most common breadth measures.
This assessment helps identify the receptive level of the child’s language as well as learning difficulties. The PPVT has
been largely translated in different languages, in French (Dunn et al., 1993); in Spanish (Dunn et al., 1986); in German
(Rossbach et al., 2005). These are simple, easy-to-administer tests in which an examiner shows a set of four images and
asks children to indicate which image best matches the word provided by the examiner. These tests can help identify a
verbal delay even before the children start school.
The breadth of vocabulary is also related to expressive vocabulary with two common examples, the Expressive
One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT), in English (Martin & Brownell, 2010); in Spanish (Brownell, 2001);
in French (Groupe coopératif en orthophonie-Région Laval, Laurentides Lanaudière, 1995) and The Expressive
Vocabulary Test (EVT), in English (Williams & Pearson Education, 2018). In these tests, the examiner presents a set of
pictures depicting objects, actions or concepts. Children are asked to name each picture by using a single word.
In addition, a more general assessment of oral language development or intelligence includes vocabulary tests. In
English, for example, the Test of Word Knowledge (TOWK) (Wiig & Secord, 1992) is a clinical language assessment
that identifies children with semantic weakness and low vocabulary, including receptive and expressive measures.
The Picture Vocabulary of the Woodcock Johnson-III (WJ-III), in English (Woodcock et al., 2001); WJ-IV (Schrank
et al., 2014) or the Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children (K-ABC), in English (Kaufman et al., 2018); in

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 39 Social Education Research

German (Kaufman et al., 2014); in French (Kaufman & Kaufman, 2008) are also used in clinical practice to assess the
intellectual and cognitive abilities and academic achievements of children (2 years and up). This assessment includes
vocabulary measures similar to the PPVT and the EVT. In French, l’Epreuve de compréhension de Carrow-Woolfok
(Carrow-Woolfolk, 1995) is the French-Quebec translation of the Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language (TACL)
(Carrow-Woolfolk, 1985) and assess receptive skills for three forms of language (e.g., vocabulary, grammar and syntax)
including a receptive measure. The task asks children to point out the picture that represents the meaning of words or
sentences.

4.2 General measures of depth of vocabulary

While one-word picture identification or naming tasks are used to estimate the number of known words (e.g.,
breadth of vocabulary), tasks to examine the extent of word knowledge are used to reflect the gradual refinement
of vocabulary knowledge. In contrast to breadth of vocabulary, depth is more difficult to operationalize since it is
multidimensional (Nagy & Scott, 2000). For this reason, the extent of semantic representation is assessed by different
tests covering all these dimensions.
The subtest Expressive Vocabulary of Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children ((WISC-III) (in English (Wechsler,
1991); WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003); adapted in e.g., in French, in Spanish (Wechsler, 2005a; Wechsler, 2005b)) or the
subtest of Expressive Vocabulary: Word definitions in the Test Of Word Knowledge (TOWK) (in English (Wiig &
Secord, 1992)) are commonly used. In these tasks, children were asked to define target words. Data scoring is based
on the number of semantic features according to the semantic category of words. The Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of
Intelligence (WASI) (in English (Wechsler, 2011)) and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), Fifth
Edition (CELF-5) (in English (Wiig et al., 2013); CELF-4 in Dutch, (Kort et al., 2008); in French-Canadian (Wiig et al.,
2009)) are also used and are similar to the WISC-III or the TOWK. The CELF includes subtests to obtain a fundamental
language score in which children are asked to provide definitions (13-16 years) or indicate connections between words
related by semantic features (4-16 years). This test is intended to be used to identify, detect and monitor language
and communication problems. Alternately, the Multiple Meanings subtest of the Language Processing Test-Revised
(LPT-R) (in English (Richard & Hanner, 2005)) asks children to define words in different contexts. This test evaluates
children’s ability to use synonyms or definitions. The TOWK (Wiig & Secord, 1992) also has a similar subtest in which
participants have to provide two meanings for a target word. Finally, the Attributes subtest of the LPT requires children
to describe attributes of names such as color, size, shape, or category (Richard & Hanner, 2005).
Researchers also use synonym tasks in addition to the definition task. For example, the receptive vocabulary task
in the TOWK (in English (Wiig & Secord, 1992)) requires participants to choose the meaning of figurative expressions
in a multiple-choice format or to select the synonym of a target word from four distractors. Similarly, in the Gates
MacGinitie Vocabulary Subtest (MacGinitie et al., 1989) children have to choose the word or sentence that is closest
to the meaning of the target word. As word knowledge is also related to word production, it seems interesting to
evaluate fluency when assessing vocabulary. For instance, Tannenbaum et al. (2006) have used the Word Use Fluency
subtest of Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (in English (Good & Kaminski, 2002); in
French (Dufour-Martel & Good, 2009)) to evaluate the depth of vocabulary by asking children to correctly use words
in sentences. Finally, Ouellette and Shaw (2014) have assessed the depth of vocabulary by examining the lexico-
semantic organization of the semantic system with the Word Classes subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language
Fundamentals, Fifth Edition (CELF-5) (Wiig et al., 2013) in which children had to indicate among four words which
were related by semantic features.

4.3 Computer-based Tools

Tools that assess the breadth of vocabulary are mainly in paper-and-pencil format. However, many researchers
are stressing the advantages of using new technologies to access more precise and reliable behavioral measures (see
Appendix A for a summary). Increasingly tests are computerized (e.g., PPVT-IV, EVT-3, DIBELS, CELF-5). In France,
most computer-based assessments are part of child speech therapy assessment. The Bilan Informatisé de Langage Oral
((BILO) [Computerized checkup for oral language] (Khomsi et al., 2007a)) is a tool for assessing oral language among
children (Khomsi et al., 2007a) and adolescents (Khomsi, et al., 2007b). BILO examines the development of oral

Social Education Research 40 | E. Dujardin, et al.

language skills before and after written language has been learned, in order to discover what holds children back in their
development. These two modules assess the lexicon in terms of both reception and production with a procedure that is
identical to the PPVT and the EVT.
The advantage of such a tool is that it provides complete results available in the form of comprehensive profiles.
The Batterie Langage oral, Langage Ecrit, Memoire, Attention ((L2MA-2) [Oral language, written language,
memory, attention] (Chevrie-Muller et al., 2011)) is also a French computer-based assessment used during speech
assessments. The tool provides an assessment of oral and written language, skills associated with reading, memory and
graphomotricity. These assessments include a lexicon module “lexique en production” [lexicon in production] in which
children are asked to name pictures.

5. The advantage of new technologies for assessment

Few computer-based tools are currently available to assess vocabulary yet digital technologies have multiple
advantages for assessment such as increased validity and reliability, increased engagement in the task by test-takers,
easier implementation in the classroom, ability to record their strategies and performance measures and the development
of new seemingly very promising adaptive assessment tools. The arguments in favor of digital technologies put forward
here mostly come from research on general literacy assessment but they are also believed to be appropriate for specific
vocabulary assessment (e.g., Cordero et al. (2018) for the use of touchscreen in writing and reading practices in children
in Spanish). Moreover, arguments for digital technologies in literacy are mostly based on computer-based tools whereas
touchscreen tablet applications appear to be equivalent to or even more advantageous than computer software.

5.1 Increased validity and reliability

Cognitive skills are not directly observable and measuring them is not easy since they depend on the task built by
the researcher on the basis of a robust theory involving clear concepts. However, some criteria make it possible to check
the efficacy and appropriateness of a psychological test, in particular with regard to validity and reliability. Validity
indicates the extent to which the test measures the cognitive skills it was designed for (Smith, 2005).
The use of computer-based tools makes it possible to get multiple and precise measurements such as the number of
correct answers and response times (Richter et al., 2013). Recording these scores is a necessary condition for measuring
cognitive skills while the precision of these scores is a necessary condition for a valid assessment tool. Reliability refers
to the ability of the task to reflect the real level of the cognitive skills assessed (Mowbray et al., 2003) based on, for
example, the fidelity of task implementation. In enabling strict control of test conditions (duration of item presentation,
automatic measure recording), using computer-based tools is a good way of increasing test reliability (Csapó et al.,
2014).

5.2 Increased engagement in the task by test-takers

Evaluating cognitive processes requires engagement in the tasks by test-takers. Indeed, assessment results will vary
depending on the attentional resources engaged. Due to their attractive aspect, based in part on the use of multimodal
items (i.e., visual/audio items; see Cordero et al. (2018), Wang et al. (2008)), computer-based tools encourage test-
taker’s motivation and engagement in the task ((Chua & Don, 2013; Kucirkova et al., 2017) for different facets of
engagement) compared to conventional paper-and-pencil tests (Singleton, 2001). Moreover, the interactive nature
of computer-based tools provides sufficient guidance to test-takers. Therefore, greater autonomy (Protopapas &
Skaloumbakas, 2007) results in an increased level of engagement.

5.3 Easier implementation in the classroom

Standardized presentation of items and greater test-taker engagement are two factors that facilitate implementation
of computer-based assessment in the classroom. Moreover, scores are recorded and can be computed automatically
(Schatz & Browndyke, 2002). This enables precise evaluation even in collective sessions. For this purpose, the

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 41 Social Education Research

use of apps on touchscreen tablets is even more appreciable: Easily transportable (Falloon, 2013; Hutchison et al.,
2012), familiar to children and highly intuitive (Beschorner & Hutchison, 2013), touchscreen tablets are particularly
appropriate for young children (Couse & Chen, 2010; Walker, 2015) and ensure valid and reliable vocabulary
measurement as well as the easy building of anonymized data banks for research or test standardization purposes
(Schaefer et al., 2015).

5.4 Recording learners’ strategies

In addition to increased reliability and easier classroom implementation, recording multiple and precise measures
makes it possible to track test-taker’s behavior (Jeong, 2014). Just by using a simultaneous interpretation of response
times and correct answers, practitioners can distinguish different test-takers’ strategies (Gil et al., 2015) or levels of
motivation (Kong et al., 2007; Wise & Kong, 2005). Four interpretations can be made: (a) satisfactory processes with
low response times and high correct response scores, (b) impaired processes with high response times and low correct
response scores, (c) non-automated processes in the form of high response times and high correct response scores, or (d)
impulsivity or “rapid guessing behavior” in the form of low response times and low correct response scores (Lee & Jia,
2014).
In reading comprehension literature, numerous measures are described as being informative of test-taker’s
strategies (reading times, number of text returns, for a more complete review of what can be done, see Greiff et al. (2016),
Vidal-Abarca et al. (2011)). For example, in multiple-choice tasks, learner strategies and performance levels can be
assessed depending on the way answer choices are displayed: Does the child wait to see all the possible answers before
selecting one or do they select one as soon as they believe is the correct answer? When paired with response times and
correct responses scores, it could inform on impulsivity or guessing behavior.

5.5 Towards the adaptive assessment

There is a debate on which kind of apps could be used (Kucirkova et al., 2017) or which signification has the use of
the touchscreen for children (Rowsell & Wohlwend, 2016). Nevertheless, we can wonder how the apps could be adapted
to individuals.
Adaptive testing refers to assessment tools that tailor item difficulties to subject ability levels (Tseng, 2016).
The computer will propose different items depending on the success or failure in replying to the initial items. This
kind of assessment enables the length of the assessment to be shorter (subjects do not see all items) and prevents the
presentation of items that are excessively easy for high ability subjects as this could foster tiredness or excessively
complex items for low ability subjects that could trigger loss of motivation and self-confidence.
Adaptive testing, therefore, enables more accurate evaluation than conventional testing and offers greater
discrimination between test-taker’s performance levels (Tseng et al., 2006). However, to be fully effective and offer
the possibility of global scoring, adaptive testing requires an items bank to be built with items of increasing difficulty.
With respect to this, Item Response Theory (IRT) (Baker, 2001) seems to be a good but complex way of building such
an items bank ((da Silva Menegon et al. (2017), Makransky et al. (2017), Vloedgraven & Verhoeven (2009) who used
IRT in various research fields). Contrary to conventional test theory that computes correct responses, the IRT test is
based on estimating a subject’s success or failure for each item that is weighted by the degree of difficulty. Therefore,
an appropriate evaluation can be proposed to subjects by selecting appropriately difficult items and providing their
estimated performances for those particular items. This enables their estimated performances for other item levels to be
inferred.

6. Recommendation for vocabulary assessment

Reviews or studies on vocabulary assessment have identified the critical aspects to be taken into account when
dealing with vocabulary assessments. Since vocabulary is multifaceted, testing vocabulary knowledge in-depth implies
integrating multiple types of assessment into the evaluation (Kremmel & Schmitt, 2016). Vocabulary assessment
procedures should closely match instructional goals (Coombe, 2011; Dougherty Stahl & Bravo, 2010) in order to

Social Education Research 42 | E. Dujardin, et al.

deliver more appropriate conclusions about the instruction needs or effectiveness (National Reading Panel, 2000;
Watkins & DeThorne, 2000). Practitioners should be transparent to test-takers as to what the task is based on and what
is expected of them (Coombe, 2011; National Reading Panel, 2000). Measures should be valid and reliable (Watkins
& DeThorne, 2000). Result interpretation should take into account the fact that vocabulary knowledge is heavily
dependent on life experience (Watkins & DeThorne, 2000). Test developers and practitioners should keep in mind that
vocabulary knowledge is not only knowledge of the meaning-form relation but also essential to comprehension and
general language ability (Oakhill et al., 2019). This implies proposing word knowledge assessments in embedded and
comprehensive dimensions as well as linking vocabulary knowledge to passage comprehension assessment to measure
the depth of vocabulary. Test developers should pay particular attention when generating items and distractors in the
multiple-choice format. Practitioners should give great care to interpret and report results: The assessment’s objectives
and targeted vocabulary dimensions should be clearly indicated by test developers (Kremmel & Schmitt, 2016). To
achieve this, links between vocabulary tests and other language or literacy tests should be given (Ouellette, 2006).
Vocabulary assessment allows us to know which vocabulary’s facets (i.e., breadth and/or depth) would be
effective or not in children. Therefore, depending on children’s performances in the tests, training sessions to stimulate
vocabulary could be proposed to improve it.

7. How to teach vocabulary?

7.1 What research shows?
7.1.1 Vocabulary acquisition

Increasing vocabulary does not only mean increasing the number of known words. It also involves increasing
vocabulary depth and building a semantically organized network (Ordóñez et al., 2002). Acquiring word knowledge,
therefore, requires building a stable mental representation with phonological, orthographic and semantic levels
(Cartwright, 2007; Perfetti & Hart, 2002). Vocabulary can be acquired through three principal methods ranging from
implicit to explicit learning: (a) incidental (implicit) learning, (b) embedded explicit instruction, or (c) extended explicit
instruction (see Appendix B for a summary of the reviewed research in the current study).

7.1.2 Incidental learning (implicit)

Vocabulary knowledge is first learned incidentally based on the extraction of invariants (semantic, affective,
perceptive, phonetic, and graphemic invariants) by abstracting elements common to linguistic occurrences (Christ &
Chiu, 2018). This incidental learning requires that children receive multiple exposures (from 40 to 200 depending on the
characteristics of the child, word types and learning context (Wasik et al., 2016)) in multiple contexts in order to go from
recognizing the word to having a full understanding of the word (Biemiller, 2006). One way to favor incidental learning
by multiplying word exposure is through storybook reading. For younger children (before they start to learn to read),
storybook reading is shared (i.e., orally presented, read aloud by parents (Sénéchal et al., 2017)). For older children (able
to read), storybook reading consists of wide (free) reading by children themselves.
The primary way for children to be exposed to new vocabulary words comes from the oral context of language
experiences such as shared storybook reading (Lenhart et al., 2018). These instructions are mainly indirect and
integrated into narrative contexts in which children have to listen to a story read to them. In this view, the contexts in
which words are encountered contribute to a partial understanding of the meaning of the words. Many studies examine
the effects of listening to stories on vocabulary growth (see Appendix B). These studies have shown that children can
learn the meaning of unfamiliar words through incidental exposure during shared storybook reading (Biemiller & Boote,
2006), but this effect was limited. Researchers began to isolate factors to improve incidental vocabulary learning. In
this context, studies have shown that repeated reading of stories (Biemiller & Boote, 2006; Penno et al., 2002) and rich
discussions (Sénéchal, 1997; Wasik & Bond, 2001) led to an increase in vocabulary knowledge.
When children learn to read, their ability to derive the meaning of words from an oral context extends to the written
context (Herman et al., 1987; Jenkins et al., 1984; Nagy et al., 1987). Children learn new words by reading on their
own. Basically, the more children read, the more words they will meet, and the more they will be likely to learn. In some

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 43 Social Education Research

studies, investigators have attempted to link children’s reading volume to specific outcomes such as vocabulary. These
studies have demonstrated that reading has a significant effect on vocabulary development (Cunningham & Stanovich,
1991). It is assumed that such a method increases the opportunity to encounter news words in different contexts.

7.1.3 Toward direct (explicit) vocabulary instruction

By calculating the averages from a range of studies, Biemiller (2006) postulates that, between the ages of 1 to 7,
children acquire about 860 root word meanings per year. This means that at the end of grade 2, they know about 6,000
root word meanings. However, the average number of roots known stretches from 4,000 words for the 25 percent
of children with the smallest number of known word meanings to 8,000 words for children in the highest quartile.
According to Biemiller (2006), this difference is largely due to home support not the children’s capacities or school
support. Moreover, vocabulary learning depended on prior vocabulary knowledge: Children with low prior vocabulary
knowledge are less receptive to vocabulary learning than those with high prior vocabulary knowledge (Webb & Chang,
2015). Then, the gap between children with low versus high home support will tend to expand if no targeted and
differential intervention is proposed to children at risk (Coyne et al., 2004; Silverman, 2007; Spencer et al., 2012). So
while word meanings seem to be learned incidentally based on vocabulary exposure, direct instruction methods are
needed to fill the gap between children experiencing high and those experiencing low vocabulary exposure (Coyne et al.,
2004; Justice et al., 2005; Penno et al., 2002; Robbins & Ehri, 1994; Sénéchal et al., 1995). Moreover, direct instruction
of individual words should help children learn difficult words that are not part of daily experience. Studies in the field of
vocabulary learning clearly identify two effective methods: the embedded and the extended methods.
Only a small number of studies have examined the effect of direct learning in the context of shared book reading (see
Appendix B). The most common approach applied was to provide children with explanations of words when they were
encountered in repeated story reading. The aim of this “embedded ” approach that focuses on breadth vocabulary growth
is to introduce a large number of words to children within the context of story read-aloud (Biemiller & Boote, 2006;
Justice et al., 2005; Penno et al., 2002; Spencer et al., 2012).
According to a review of 50 experimental or quasi-experimental vocabulary studies (National Reading Panel,
2000), learning words in context results in better vocabulary acquisition than learning words in isolation. Hence, two
types of strategies would theoretically be effective for vocabulary instruction. First, embedded strategies that consist
in teaching the meaning of words encountered in context. Storybook reading is one of the most documented embedded
strategies for preschool or primary children (for a recent review on storybook reading (Wasik et al., 2016)). However,
variations can be found within storybook strategy depending on different conditions: The number of reading sessions, on
the one hand, the presence or absence of explanations given by adults on the other (incidental versus explicit learning).
In a review of seven studies assessing the effectiveness of storybook reading on vocabulary acquisition based on
these two conditions, Biemiller (2006) argued that (a) vocabulary gains were lower if storybooks are read only once
(about 4% more words understood by children after compared to before story reading) compared to the storybook
read three of four times (10% to 15% more words understood by children after compared to before story reading).
He also argues that (b) vocabulary gains were higher when adult explanations of new word meanings were taken into
account (14% to 29% more words understood by children after compared to before story reading). Following this
review, Biemiller and Boote (2006) conducted a study with 43 children from kindergarten to Grade 3. In this study, the
authors examined the effect of repeated reading (twice versus 4 times) with the presence or absence of explanations
on new vocabulary acquisition. Vocabulary knowledge before and after the test was assessed by asking children to
provide explanations of words from context sentences. After the test, researchers found that an average gain of 12% was
obtained when stories were repeated. When brief explanations were provided, a further 10% gain was added. Overall,
children learned more words when direct instructions were provided (22%) relative to incidental instruction (12%). In
a second study, Biemiller and Boote (2006) show that more words were learned (41% in study 2 and 22% in study 1)
by adding two reviews of word meanings. This new presentation provided children with the opportunity to refine the
meaning of words in new contexts not based on the book and with additional explanations of word meanings.

7.1.4 Extended vocabulary instruction

Extended strategies consist in teaching the meanings of words encountered in context then extending the teaching

Social Education Research 44 | E. Dujardin, et al.

of these words in other contexts, teaching collocations, synonyms, antonyms, or polysemies. For example, McKeown
and their colleagues (2014; 1983) conducted studies that investigated the effect of extended vocabulary instruction on
reading comprehension and word knowledge in fourth graders. The instructional program includes activities that require
children to (a) interact with words and their meanings in order to use them, (b) associate words with their contexts, (c)
generate contexts for target words and (d) compare words in order to examine their relationships.
The assessment measures focused on accuracy (children were instructed to choose the correct definition of target
words among four alternatives), fluency (children were asked to decide if a target word belonged to a semantic category)
and reading comprehension (children have to read then recall and answer questions about the stories). The results of
this study have shown that the group of instructed children showed a significant advantage in terms of both vocabulary
knowledge and comprehension compared to the group of non-instructed children.
The review of the National Reading Panel (2000) also added that incrementally teaching a word meaning was
useful in developing depth dimensions in addition to vocabulary breadth and that heterogeneity of context in which
words are encountered was essential to “precise, nuanced and even sophisticated” (p. 290) meanings of newly acquired
words. Hence, extended strategies seem more appropriate than embedded strategies to teach high-quality vocabulary
knowledge.
This assumption is consistent with the results of the Silverman (2007) study who compared the effectiveness of
three instruction types: (a) contextual instruction that consists in teaching words in context and relating them to the
children’s personal experience, (b) analytical instruction that consists in enhancing contextual instruction (adding
semantic analysis of words in other contexts and children’s experience), and (c) anchored instruction that consists in
explicitly linking words to their phonological and orthographic properties. Contextual instruction could be assimilated
to an embedded strategy, whereas analytical and anchored instructions that add more contextual use could be assimilated
to extended strategies.
Silverman (2007) compared results in vocabulary tests in three groups of children in kindergarten (two classrooms
per group) experiencing the three different approaches using a pre-test/training/post-test approach. The results showed
that performance in learning targeted vocabulary was higher in analytic and anchored instruction (assimilated to
extended strategies) compared to contextual instruction (assimilated to an embedded strategy). These results are
consistent with those of Coyne et al. (2009) who conclude that embedded strategies provided partial knowledge of a
word (e.g., the meaning-form link that could be assimilated to vocabulary breadth), while extended strategies provided a
finer and more precise knowledge of a word (that could be assimilated to vocabulary depth).
Recently, many researchers have used active processing to promote vocabulary instruction in young children
(Beck & McKeown, 2007; Coyne et al., 2009). These studies have reported a positive impact of extended vocabulary
instruction on word learning, but the effects on reading comprehension have not been examined or were not
significant (McKeown & Beck, 2014). Only Coyne and colleagues (2010) have reported a positive effect on listening
comprehension measured for children who learn the meaning of words through deeper processing.
Finally, active processing also refers to activities in which children examine how words are related to each other
through semantic mapping (Johnson et al., 1982) and semantic feature analysis (Bos et al., 1989). In the first method,
children were instructed to draw a graph centered on a given concept the connections of which are ideas that explain
the concept. While building these maps, discussions between children and teachers are fundamental to successful
construction. Another method used in learning words is semantic feature analysis. Children are asked to draw a
summary table where category members would be listed in the first left column and the characteristics of these members
in the first row of the table. The children must indicate whether the members have the characteristics (a “+” is drawn in
the corresponding box) or not (a “-” is drawn in the corresponding box). The aim of such a method is to help students
categorize vocabulary words and distinguish similarities and differences between related ideas.
In short, extended vocabulary instruction relies on three strategies: multiplying word exposure in various contexts,
learning words incrementally, and using active learning. One limit of extended strategies is the fact that, when compared
to embedded strategies, extended strategies are time-consuming (Coyne et al., 2009), therefore, should be limited to
teaching targeted words and vocabulary learning for children at risk due to their low initial vocabulary levels. This,
therefore, implies implementing a differentiated pedagogy based on initial levels and this requires an assessment
of initial levels. In one of his studies, Coyne et al. (2010) examined the effectiveness of direct extended instruction
for children considered as being at risk. Three conditions were set as being necessary for extended instruction: new

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 45 Social Education Research

word meanings are learned through simple definitions and synonyms, intervention provides extended opportunities to
encounter the word in various contexts, therefore, promoting depth of vocabulary. Children were separated into two
groups: The experimental one that received 18 weeks of direct extended instruction (36 hours) targeting 54 words to
be learned and the control group that did not receive the instruction. Results showed that children in the experimental
groups obtained better results than those in the control groups over several measures (generalized receptive vocabulary
and listening comprehension). However, the effectiveness of the intervention was closely related to initial receptive
vocabulary: Children with low initial receptive vocabulary benefit less from the intervention than those with high initial
receptive vocabulary. This finding illustrates a Matthew effect in vocabulary learning that reinforces the need for early
intensive vocabulary intervention for children at risk.

7.1.5 What to teach?

Vocabulary learning is not only recognizing new words but rather implies being able to understand and use
them appropriately and fluently in context (Ordóñez et al., 2002). Also, teaching vocabulary requires teaching several
dimensions (Bromley, 2004). The choice of intervention and the dimensions taught will depend on the learning goals.
As presented in the study of Coyne et al. (2009), vocabulary breadth interventions should be limited to teaching word
general knowledge whereas vocabulary depth interventions should be limited to teaching targeted vocabulary. The
question is then to define which targeted words are needed to be taught with extended interventions?

7.1.6 Which words to teach?

Selecting words to teach is one major concern when designing new vocabulary teaching systems. Should the
intervention focus on unknown words? Should it focus on improving knowledge of frequent words or encourage
exposure and learning of rare words? Or should the intervention focus on important and useful words only? In the
latter case, what criteria are applied when choosing the words considered as useful and important? With respect to this,
Hiebert (2005) described the characteristics of an “efficient and effective component ” of vocabulary. Efficient takes
account of the wealth (number of semantic associations, word frequency and morphological families), effective takes
account of the probability of encountering these words depending on the grade level, and component refers to the fact
that selected words only constitute a part of the vocabulary that is required at a targeted grade level.
Different methods are described to select words to teach (Gray & Yang, 2015). The most current one is the Tier-
2 method described by Beck et al. (2005). A corpus of words in a text are divided into tiers: Tier-1 comprises highly
frequent words that are probably already known by students, Tier-2 comprises words needed to be used by subjects
for mature language (i.e., subject knows a concept and the Tier-2 word can help them express simply their idea using
appropriate words associated with this concept) and Tier-3 comprises rare word linked with specific domains. According
to the authors, vocabulary intervention should focus on Tier-2 words in order to facilitate comprehension or expression.
Biemiller (2005) proposed another approach that consists of focusing intervention on words known by 40 to 80%
of students at a targeted grade level (end of grade 2). These words are then considered at an intermediate level and
teaching them would help reduce the gap between low and high vocabulary learners. In a recent review, Gray and Yang
(2015) compared the advantages and disadvantages of five approaches to select words to be taught including Tier-2 (Beck
et al., 2005) and Biemiller’s (2005) approaches. The principal advantage of the Tier-2 approach lies in the flexibility
of the approach (words can be divided into tiers for each text studied in class) while the main drawback is the lack of
a common core of words known to all children of the same age or grade-level. In Biemiller’s approach, the advantages
and disadvantages are reversed: the words to be taught are the same for all children but this is performed independently
of the material used to enhance vocabulary learning. The difficulty, therefore, lies in implementing words to be taught
into the school sequence.

7.1.7 Teaching word meanings and/or learning word meanings

Another way to question what to teach in vocabulary instruction examines the more general problem of teaching a
specific knowledge or teaching meta-abilities such as strategies to learn new vocabulary. Vocabulary intervention studies
are critically missing tests of learning strategies and measures of transfer knowledge in general language and literacy

Social Education Research 46 | E. Dujardin, et al.

(Coyne et al., 2010). Therefore, it is important to differentiate between (a) interventions that target the acquisition of
specific word meanings, (b) interventions that focus on teaching more general word knowledge, and (c) interventions
providing instruction in learning strategies.
In a dated study for second language learners, Schmitt and Schmitt (1993) suggested that students need to have
the skills to help manage their own learning. They identify various strategies for learning new words such as “using
reference materials” (e.g., dictionary), “asking others for information” (e.g., the teacher, classmates), “analyzing words
from available information” (e.g., inferring the meaning of a word from its context), or “creating a system to analyze
words”. Then, they present strategies to remember the meanings of words learned, such as “repetition” or “studying
the formal and grammatical aspects of a word”. In this study, Schmitt and Schmitt (1993) stressed the fact that low
vocabulary learners were less likely to use multiple and various strategies to learn new word meanings than high
vocabulary learners. Moreover, the use of vocabulary strategies seems to have an impact on more general language
ability and favors autonomy in vocabulary learning. These results confirm the need to teach vocabulary learning
strategies to low vocabulary students in order to foster the use of these strategies. New studies of this type would be
invaluable in assessing the impact of teaching vocabulary learning strategies to young children in a first language
learning context.

8. Advantage of new technologies in teaching vocabulary

8.1 Increased motivation
The first arguments in support of the use of digital technologies in learning concern motivation. Indeed, computers
or tablets are attractive to children due to their fun aspect (e.g., games). Moreover, the multimodal items and interactivity
(Stetter & Hughes, 2011) offered by these technologies encourage high attentional engagement by learners (Beschorner
& Hutchison, 2013; Sung et al., 2008). Finally, computer-based or tablet-based technologies have benefits for children
with learning difficulties or disabilities (Fernández-López et al., 2013; Stetter & Hughes, 2011). Students with learning
disabilities or atypical profiles often show poor results despite their efforts. As a result, these children have less self-
confidence and motivation to learn and to go to work in school. The appealing aspect of digital technologies makes it
possible to (re)motivate these students. Indeed, recently, Mize et al. (2018) have shown that visual and auditory support
(image, visual animations and graphics) have a positive effect on the learning outcome for children with learning
disabilities. In addition, the fact that digital programs provide individualized training, respect individual learning speeds
and give non-judgmental and systematic feedback, can enable students who have dropped out to regain self-confidence
and re-engage in learning processes (Lynch et al., 2000).

8.2 Favoring processing acquisition: the advantages of controlled feedback

The presence of feedback in a digital tool dedicated to learning is one of the conditions for its efficiency and
superiority compared to a paper-and-pencil tool (Babin et al., 2009; Johnson-Glenberg, 2007; Lynch et al., 2000; Sung
et al., 2008; Van der Kleij et al., 2012). Indeed, adding systematic feedback following the learner’s answers provides for
interactive (the subject receives feedback on their answers during the task) and personalized (the feedback is dependent
on the subject’s answers) learning (Van der Kleij et al., 2012). Feedback differs based on four complementary aspects:
the types of feedback when the feedback is provided and the length and complexity on the one hand (Shute, 2008), and
the level of feedback impact on the other (Hattie & Timperley, 2007).
Three main types of feedback are defined: Firstly, “knowing results” feedback, in which the feedback provided
by the software simply indicates whether the answer is right or wrong without giving the correct answer. The second
type of feedback is corrective (“knowing correct response”). The third type corresponds to elaborative feedback:
The feedback gives information to succeed in the exercise and thus implies a meta-cognitive component favoring
the spreading of learning to other contexts. The feedback can also be defined by the timing and this is on two levels:
Immediate, the feedback is provided directly after the question or is delayed, the feedback is provided at the end of the
exercise for example. The complexity of the feedback is part of a continuum from simple to complex and takes into
account, in particular, the type and the length of the feedback.

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 47 Social Education Research

 Four points of impact are targeted by the feedback (Hattie & Timperley, 2007): they can be related to the software
user (“self ”), the task (“task”), the general procedure necessary to succeed in the task (“processing”) or the strategy
chosen by the subject (“regulation”). The choice of feedback impact level may slightly change the content of the
feedback without changing the type. For example, elaborate feedback will vary depending on whether it is “task” or
“procedure” oriented: In the first case, the help given will be relative to the task such as giving contextualized clues
(e.g., keywords to answer an understanding question); in the second case, the help given will concern the procedure
such as giving the general rule for the success of this type of exercise. Result feedback may relate to the task (e.g.,
“the answer is wrong”) or the user with congratulations or encouragement (e.g. “You made a mistake. Take back your
chance!”).
The effectiveness of the feedback depends on the interaction between the characteristics of the user (age,
developmental level and attitude), the characteristics of the task and the characteristics of the feedback defined in the
previous paragraph. Thus, there is no one type of feedback superior to all others. Nevertheless, Stobart (2008) proposes
three general criteria conditioning the effectiveness of feedback for learning: first, the learner must need feedback. For
example, Hattie and Timperley (2007) discuss the need for feedback when there is too much difference between the
goal and the understanding of that goal. Secondly, the learner must have the time to receive the feedback: Feedback that
disappears too quickly from the screen will not be effective. Third, the learner must want to pay attention to feedback
and be able to use it. Nor will excessively complex feedback be effective. According to Timmers and Veldkamp (2011),
users pay more attention to feedback based on incorrect responses compared to feedback following a correct answer.
The effectiveness of learning through feedback thus seems to be partly based on the fact that the user makes mistakes.
In a more recent study, Van der Kleij et al. (2015) compared the effectiveness of different feedback depending on
types (i.e., elaborated, knowing response, or knowing correct response), level of learning outcomes (i.e., high or low),
timing (i.e., immediate or delayed) and subjects age (i.e., primary, secondary school or university). Results showed that
elaborated feedback was more effective than knowing response and knowing correct response feedback, particularly for
higher-order learning outcomes. They also demonstrated that feedback provided immediately was more effective than
delayed feedback and that feedback was more effective for students from university than for younger children from
primary and secondary school.
To conclude, the appropriateness of the feedback provided during an intervention is critical for its effectiveness.
Digital technologies offer the opportunity to program targeted feedback adapted to targeted situations. Then, the
feedback type and conditions must be consistent and systematic in order to respect learners’ needs and ensure
intervention efficacy.

8.3 Allowing differentiated instruction

One-to-one tutoring is considered by some authors as the most effective instruction form (Van der Kleij et
al., 2012). Indeed, one-to-one tutoring makes it possible to actively process learning strategies, receive systematic,
immediate and appropriate feedback and progress at the learner’s own pace. Digital technologies have these three
characteristics (McNamara et al., 2004; Sung et al., 2008). Children can therefore benefit from an individualized
program even in a group situation at school (Johnson-Glenberg, 2007). This is consistent with the aim to offer a
differentiated pedagogy in order to provide each child with instruction adapted to his/her skills and his/her initial level.
Thus, the subject is an active agent in his/her learning (McNamara, 2004; McNamara et al., 2004; Rutten et al., 2012).
In addition, digital technologies offer the possibility of programming success conditions (objective achieved,
skills acquired) to move on to the next exercise or to start an exercise over when the competence is considered as “not
acquired” or “in the process of being acquired “. This reinforces the ability of digital tools to provide individually
targeted instruction that could be efficient even in full classroom situations.

8.4 With touchscreen tablets particularly

Regarding the use of the touchpad, studies have highlighted ergonomic arguments such as mobility (touchscreen
tablets are no bigger or heavier than a book), the ability to easily customize the interface with for example the ability
to zoom, incorporate images or definitions, or highlight words as they are read (Hutchison et al., 2012). The intuitive
nature of touchpad navigation enables digital tools to be used with younger children and eliminates the need for specific

Social Education Research 48 | E. Dujardin, et al.

teaching in how to use the tool (Neumann & Neumann, 2014).
Conversely, the difficulty added by the mouse and keyboard as intermediates between the hand and the screen
limits the possibility of using computers with young children without prior awareness-raising and learning (Couse
& Chen, 2010). Several authors define the characteristics that applications must possess in order to be effective. For
example, Fernández-López et al. (2013) emphasize the notions of usability, accessibility, flexibility, adaptability and
mobility. On the cognitive level, the main arguments put forward are the possibility of presenting multi-modal stimuli
such as visual, auditory, tactile and kinesthetic stimuli (Chen & Sun, 2012). This favors the possibility of displaying
multiple encoding which is acknowledged as being more robust, the possibility of compensating one deficit channel
by another procedure (Fernández-López et al., 2013), the possibility of facilitating the understanding of instructions or
navigation (e.g., navigation icons, instructions read aloud by the application).

9. Recommendations for (explicit) vocabulary instruction

Recommendations for vocabulary instruction can be divided into two parts: First, research has defined the
conditions that favor vocabulary acquisition. Secondly, research has defined the conditions that favor the effectiveness
of vocabulary instruction methods in enhancing the feasibility of active participation by vocabulary learners (Bromley,
2004).
For vocabulary acquisition, five main principles can be set down: (a) incidental learning enables more new word
meanings to be learned than explicit teaching (Manyak et al., 2014), (b) new word meanings are learned more easily
when presented in context (Silverman, 2007; National Reading Panel, 2000) and (c) when acquired incrementally (Nagy
& Scott, 2000). This implies that (d) vocabulary learners should benefit from multiple exposures to targeted words and
in various contexts and with various approaches in order to build in-depth vocabulary knowledge (National Reading
Panel, 2000; Silverman, 2007). Finally, (e) instruction should target the acquisition of new word meanings and the
teaching of learning strategies (Manyak et al., 2014).
As regards fostering the effectiveness of vocabulary instruction, Manyak et al. (2014) describe four principles. (1)
Teachers should establish routines for introducing new word meanings. This makes it possible to reduce time spent on
exercise because after the first session, additional time is no longer necessary to explain instructions. This also enables
more autonomy to be provided to children in their activities, thereby enhancing children’s engagement. However, in
order to prevent disengagement, it is recommended to switch between several routines over the year. (2) Teachers
should promote activities with deep processing of word meanings, (3) directly address confusion among learners and
foster participation by each learner. For this latter purpose, the use of new technologies is advantageous since it makes it
possible to provide individual, immediate, systematic and appropriate feedback to learners’ answers as well as adaptive
differentiated intervention.

10. Conclusion
The concept of vocabulary knowledge is complex. Depending on the researcher’s point of view, vocabulary does
not refer to the same construct. Yet a consensus seems to be taking shape on the issue of how to define vocabulary.
Vocabulary can be investigated in its breadth and depth. Generally, to assess the number of known words, standardized
tests examine the connection between the form and meaning of words in a receptive and expressive way. Because these
tests are composed of an average of 100 items, it gives a general indicator of the size of the child’s lexicon and identifies
children at risk. But, breadth of vocabulary is not the critical dimension since the depth of vocabulary is the dimension
that has been reported as fundamental for reading comprehension. The major problem with depth of vocabulary is that
it reflects the entire complexity and multidimensionality of vocabulary knowledge as reported by Nagy and Scott (2000)
for example. In other words, the quality of semantic knowledge about words cannot be limited to a simple test in which
children are asked to define words. Generally, researchers used other tests to capture the multidimensional nature of the
meaning of words such as synonym selection or word production, in line with a different theoretical approach.
A review of the scientific literature suggests that vocabulary development is a multidimensional process that

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 49 Social Education Research

requires a combination of direct and indirect instruction, discussion and active learning processes. Given the large
number of words that are learned during childhood and adolescence (Biemiller & Slonim, 2001; Nation, 2006), it can be
argued that direct vocabulary teaching only explains a few of these words. Most of them are learned incidentally. This
assumption is supported by experimental studies showing that word knowledge can be acquired through the written
context (reading) and oral context (shared reading). However, some authors have sought to improve this learning by
adding, on the one hand, repeated exposures to words as well as explanations of the meaning of words (embedded).
These explanations involve brief definitions of word meanings. On the other hand, authors have also studied more
interactive activities to improve vocabulary (extended). These methods are apparently effective in increasing vocabulary
skills and, with respect to the latter, providing the components of a vocabulary learning method that is effective for both
vocabulary and comprehension (National Reading Panel, 2000; Marulis & Neuman, 2013).

11. Perspectives
In line with the literature, several arguments must be taken into account when designing new high-quality
vocabulary tools for assessment or instruction using digital technologies. In the context of vocabulary assessment,
digital tools could provide accurate data collection and analysis of children’s responses as well as response time and
correct responses, an increased validity and reliability of assessment, and attractive support to enhance children’s
engagement in the task. These features are germane to the development of an accurate and detailed profile of children
both in terms of vocabulary and reading skills. Moreover, future assessment tools should target adaptive assessment
based on, for example, item response theory.
In the context of vocabulary instruction, computer-based tools should provide an interactive and multi-modal
environment to favor motivation and engagement, systematic feedback appropriate to learners’ characteristics such
as age or initial vocabulary level to favor autonomy and active learning, and differentiated instruction depending on
learners’ initial vocabulary level enabling children to progress at their own pace without group or teacher pressure.
More generally, the effectiveness of digital tools on learning requires more in-depth collaboration between researchers
(cognitive aspects), teachers (pedagogical aspects) and developers (ergonomic aspects) to promote wider use of their
potentialities and benefits.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
Anglin, J. M., Miller, G. A., & Wakefield, P. C. (1993). Vocabulary development: A Morphological analysis.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58(10). https://doi.org/10.2307/1166112
Babin, L.-M., Tricot, A., & Mariné, C. (2009). Seeking and providing assistance while learning to use information
systems. Computers & Education, 53(4), 1029-1039. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2009.01.015
Baker, F. B. (2001). The Basics of Item Response Theory. ERIC Publications.
Beck, I. L., & McKeown, M. G. (2007). Increasing young low-income children’s oral vocabulary repertoires through
rich and focused instruction. The Elementary School Journal, 107(3), 251-271. http://doi.org/10.1086/511706
Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2005). Choosing words to teach. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.),
Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Bringing Research to Practice (pp. 209-222). Routledge.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C. A., & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term vocabulary instruction on lexical access
and reading comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 74(4), 506-521. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.74.4.506
Beschorner, B., & Hutchison, A. (2013). IPads as a literacy teaching tool in early childhood. Online Submission, 1(1),
16-24.
Biemiller, A. (2005). Size and sequence in vocabulary development: Implications for choosing words for primary

Social Education Research 50 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 grade vocabulary instruction. In E. H. Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.), Teaching and learning vocabulary: Bringing
research to practice (pp. 223-242). Mahwah, NJ, US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Biemiller, A. (2006). Vocabulary development and instruction: A prerequisite for school learning. In D.K. Dickinson, &
Neuman, S.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Early Literacy Research (pp. 41-51), Guilford Press.
Biemiller, A., & Boote, C. (2006). An Effective method for building meaning vocabulary in primary grades. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 98(1), 44-62. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.44
Biemiller, A., & Slonim, N. (2001). Estimating root word vocabulary growth in normative and advantaged populations:
Evidence for a common sequence of vocabulary acquisition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(3), 498-520.
http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.498
Bos, C. S, Anders, P. L., Filip, D., & Jaffe, L. (1989). The Effects of an interactive instructional strategy for enhancing
reading comprehension and content area learning for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities,
22(6), 384-390. http://doi.org/10.1177/002221948902200611
Braze, D., Katz, L., Magnuson, J. S., Mencl, W. E., Tabor, W., Van Dyke, J. A., Shankweiler, D. P. (2016). Vocabulary
does not complicate the simple view of reading. Reading and Writing, 29(3), 435-451. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s11145-015-9608-6
Brinchmann, E. I., Hjetland, H. N., & Lyster, S.-A. H. (2015). Lexical quality matters: Effects of word knowledge
instruction on the language and literacy skills of third- and fourth-grade poor readers. Reading Research Quarterly,
51(2), 165-180. https://doi.org/10.1002/rrq.128
Bromley, K. (2004). Rethinking vocabulary instruction. Language and Literacy Spectrum, 14, 3-12.
Brownell, R. (2001). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test-Spanish-Bilingual Edition. Novato, CA: Academic
Therapy Publications.
Cain, K., & Oakhill, J. (2014). Reading comprehension and vocabulary: Is vocabulary more important for some aspects
of comprehension? L’Année Psychologique, 114(4), 647-662. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004035
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1985). TACL-R: test for auditory comprehension of language. DLM Teaching Resources.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1995). Oral and written language scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service, 93(94),
947-964.
Cartwright, K. B. (2007). The contribution of graphophonological-semantic flexibility to reading comprehension in
college students: Implications for a less simple view of reading. Journal of Literacy Research, 39(2), 173-193.
http://doi.org/10.1080/10862960701331902
Chen, C.-M., & Sun, Y.-C. (2012). Assessing the effects of different multimedia materials on emotions and learning
performance for visual and verbal style learners. Computers & Education, 59(4), 1273-1285. http://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2012.05.006
Chevrie-Muller, C., Maillart, C., & Simon, A. M. (2011). L2MA-2: Langage oral, langage écrit, mémoire, attention [Oral
language, written language, memory, attention]. ECPA.
Chiu, Y.-D. (2018). The simple view of reading across development: the prediction of grade 3 reading comprehension
by prekindergarten skills. Remedial and Special Education, 39(5). https://doi.org/10.1177/0741932518762055
Christ, T., & Chiu, M. M. (2018). Hearing words, learning words: How different presentations of novel vocabulary
words affect children’s incidental learning. Early Education and Development, 29(6), 831-851. http://doi.org/10.10
80/10409289.2018.1484648
Chua, Y. P., & Don, Z. M. (2013). Effects of computer-based educational achievement test on test performance and test
takers’ motivation. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(5), 1889-1895. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.03.008
Colenbrander, D., Kohnen, S., Smith-Lock, K., & Nickels, L. (2016). Individual differences in the vocabulary skills
of children with poor reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 210-220. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.021
Coombe, C. (2011). Assessing vocabulary in the language classroom. In D. Anderson & R. Sheehan (Eds.), Focus on
Vocabulary: Emerging Theory and Practice for Adult Arab Learners (pp. 111-124). United Arab Emirates: HCT
Press
Cordero, K., Nussbaum, M., Ibaseta, V., Otaíza, M. J., & Chiuminatto, P. (2018). Read, write, touch: Co-construction
and multiliteracies in a third-grade digital writing exercise. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 34(2), 162‑173.
http://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12224
Couse, L. J., & Chen, D. W. (2010). A tablet computer for young children? Exploring its viability for early childhood
education. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 43(1), 75-96. http://doi.org/10.1080/15391523.2010.1
0782562
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr, R., & Kapp, S. (2009). Direct vocabulary instruction in

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 51 Social Education Research

 kindergarten: Teaching for breadth versus depth. The Elementary School Journal, 110(1), 1-18. http://doi.
org/10.1086/598840
Coyne, M. D., McCoach, D. B., Loftus, S., Zipoli Jr, R., Ruby, M., Crevecoeur, Y. C., & Kapp, S. (2010). Direct and
extended vocabulary instruction in kindergarten: Investigating transfer effects. Journal of Research on Educational
Effectiveness, 3(2), 93-120. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345741003592410
Coyne, M. D., Simmons, D. C., Kame’enui, E. J., & Stoolmiller, M. (2004). Teaching vocabulary during shared
storybook readings: An examination of differential effects. Exceptionality, 12(3), 145-162. https://doi.org/10.1207/
s15327035ex1203_3
Csapó, B., Molnár, G., & Nagy, J. (2014). Computer-based assessment of school readiness and early reasoning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 106(3), 639. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035756
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of print exposure in children: Associations
with vocabulary, general knowledge, and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(2), 264-274. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.2.264
da Silva Menegon, L., Vincenzi, S. L., de Andrade, D. F., Barbetta, P. A., Merino, E. A. D., & Vink, P. (2017). Design
and validation of an aircraft seat comfort scale using item response theory. Applied Ergonomics, 62, 216-226.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apergo.2017.03.005
Dale, H. C. A. (1965). Recency in two-choice guessing tasks. British Journal of Psychology, 56(1), 33‑44. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1965.tb00941.x
Daller, H., Milton, J., & Treffers-Daller, J. (2007). Modelling and Assessing Vocabulary Knowledge. Cambridge
University Press Cambridge.
Dougherty Stahl, K. A., & Bravo, M. A. (2010). Contemporary classroom vocabulary assessment for content areas. The
Reading Teacher, 63(7), 566-578. https://doi.org/10.1598/RT.63.7.4
Dufour-Martel, C., & Good, R. H. (2009). Investigating the psychometric properties of three French language early
reading measures. Effective Education, 1(1), 87‑100. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415530903043698
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). PPVT-4: Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. Pearson Assessments.
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, D. M., & Styles, B. (2009). The British Picture Vocabulary Scale. GL Assessment Limited.
Dunn, L. M., Dunn, L. M., & Theriault-Whalen, C. (1993). EVIP: Échelle de vocabulaire en images Peabody [Pictures
Vocabulary Scale Peabody]. https://books.google.fr/books?id=WW_6oAEACAAJ
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody: TVIP:
Adaptacion Hispano americana [Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test: PPVT: Hispanic-American Adaptation]. Circle
Pines, MN: American Guidance Service (AGS), Inc.
Elley, W. (1989). Vocabulary acquisition from listening to stories. ReadingResearch Quarterly, 24(2), 174-187. https://
doi.org/10.2307/747863
Elwér, Å., Keenan, J. M., Olson, R. K., Byrne, B., & Samuelsson, S. (2013). Longitudinal stability and predictors of
poor oral comprehenders and poor decoders. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 115(3), 497‑516. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jecp.2012.12.001
Falloon, G. (2013). Young students using iPads: App design and content influences on their learning pathways.
Computers & Education, 68, 505-521. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2013.06.006
Fernández-López, Á., Rodríguez-Fórtiz, M. J., Rodríguez-Almendros, M. L., & Martínez-Segura, M. J. (2013).
Mobile learning technology based on iOS devices to support students with special education needs. Computers &
Education, 61, 77-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2012.09.014
Gardner, D. (2007). Validating the construct of word in applied corpus-based vocabulary research: A critical survey.
Applied Linguistics, 28(2), 241-265. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amm010
Gil, L., Martinez, T., & Vidal-Abarca, E. (2015). Online assessment of strategic reading literacy skills. Computers &
Education, 82, 50-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.026
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills: DIBELS. R. H. Good (Ed.).
Dynamic Measurement Group.
Gray, S., & Yang, H.-C. (2015). Selecting vocabulary words to teach. SIG 1 Perspectives on Language Learning and
Education, 22(4), 123-130. http://doi.org/10.1044/lle22.4.123
Greiff, S., Niepel, C., Scherer, R., & Martin, R. (2016). Understanding students’ performance in a computer-based
assessment of complex problem solving: An analysis of behavioral data from computer-generated log files.
Computers in Human Behavior, 61, 36-46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.095
Groupe coopératif en orthophonie-Région Laval, Laurentides, Lanaudière. (1995). Test de dénomination EO-WPVT-R
de Gardner [Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test]. Ordre des orthophonistes et audiologistes du Québec

Social Education Research 52 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 [College of Speech Language and Audiology of Quebec], Montréal, Québec, Canada.
Gyllstad, H., Vilkaitė, L., & Schmitt, N. (2015). Assessing vocabulary size through multiple-choice formats: Issues
with guessing and sampling rates. ITL-International Journal of Applied Linguistics, 166(2), 278-306. https://doi.
org/10.1075/itl.166.2.04gyl
Harsch, C., & Hartig, J. (2016). Comparing C-tests and Yes/No vocabulary size tests as predictors of receptive language
skills. Language Testing, 33(4), 555-575. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532215594642
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 81-112. https://doi.
org/10.3102/003465430298487
Herman, P. A., Anderson, R. C., Pearson, P. D., & Nagy, W. E. (1987). Incidental acquisition of word meaning from
expositions with varied text features. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(3), 263. https://doi.org/10.2307/747968
Hiebert, E. H. (2005). In pursuit of an effective, efficient vocabulary curriculum for elementary students. In E.H.
Hiebert & M. L. Kamil (Eds.). Teaching and Learning Vocabulary: Bringing Research to Practice (pp. 243-264).
Routledge.
Hoffman, J. L., Teale, W. H., & Paciga, K. A. (2014). Assessing vocabulary learning in early childhood. Journal of
Early Childhood Literacy, 14(4), 459-481. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468798413501184
Hutchison, A., Beschorner, B., & Schmidt-Crawford, D. (2012). Exploring the use of the iPad for literacy learning. The
Reading Teacher, 66(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/TRTR.01090
Jenkins, J. R., Stein, M. L., & Wysocki, K. (1984). Learning vocabulary through reading. American Educational
Research Journal, 21(4), 767-787. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312021004767
Jeong, H. (2014). A comparative study of scores on computer-based tests and paper-based tests. Behaviour &
Information Technology, 33(4), 410-422. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2012.710647
Johnson, D. D., Toms-Bronowski, S., & Pittelman, S. D. (1982). An investigation of the effectiveness of semantic
mapping and semantic feature analysis with intermediate grade children (Program Report). Madison: University of
Wisconsin, Center for Educational Research.
Johnson-Glenberg, M. C. (2007). Web-based reading comprehension instruction: Three studies of 3D-readers. In D. S.
McNamara (Eds.), Reading Comprehension Strategies: Theories, Interventions, and Technologies (pp. 293-324).
Routledge.
Justice, L. M., Meier, J., & Walpole, S. (2005). Learning new words from storybooks: An Efficacy study with at-
risk kindergartners. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-
1461(2005/003)
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2008). KABC-II batterie pour l’examen psychologique de l’enfant, deuxième ed.
[Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition]. ECPA.
Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L., Drozdick, L. W., & Morrison, J. (2018). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children-
Second Edition Normative Update (KABC-II NU), manual supplement. Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Kaufman, A. S., Kaufman, N. L., Melchers, P., & Melchers, M. (2014). German-language adaptation of the Kaufman
Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition. Frankfurt, Germany: Pearson.
Khomsi, A., Khomsi, J., & Pasquet, F. (2007a). Bilan Informatisé de Langage Oral au cycle 2 (BILO-2) [Computerized
assessment of oral language for 5-7 years old children]. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
Khomsi, A., Khomsi, J., & Pasquet, F. (2007b). Bilan Informatisé de Langage Oral au cycle 3 (BILO-3C) [Computerized
assessment of oral language adolescents]. Paris: Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée.
Kieffer, M. J., & Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Knowledge of words, knowledge about words: Dimensions of vocabulary in first
and second language learners in sixth grade. Reading and Writing, 25(2), 347-373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-
010-9272-9
Kong, X. J., Wise, S. L., & Bhola, D. S. (2007). Setting the response time threshold parameter to differentiate solution
behavior from rapid-guessing behavior. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 67(4), 606-619. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0013164406294779
Kort, W., Schittekatte, M., & Compaan, E. (2008). CELF-4-NL: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Vierde-
Editie. Amsterdam: Pearson Assessment and Information.
Kremmel, B., & Schmitt, N. (2016). Interpreting vocabulary test scores: What do various item formats tell us about
learners’ ability to employ words? Language Assessment Quarterly, 13(4), 377-392. https://doi.org/10.1080/15434
303.2016.1237516
Kucirkova, N., Littleton, K., & Cremin, T. (2017). Young children’s reading for pleasure with digital books: Six
key facets of engagement. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), 67‑84. https://doi.org/10.1080/030576
4X.2015.1118441

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 53 Social Education Research

Laufer, B., & Goldstein, Z. (2004). Testing vocabulary knowledge: Size, strength, and computer adaptiveness. Language
Learning, 54(3), 399-436. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0023-8333.2004.00260.x
Lee, Y.-H., & Jia, Y. (2014). Using response time to investigate students’ test-taking behaviors in a NAEP computer-
based study. Large-Scale Assessments in Education, 2(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40536-014-0008-1
Lenhart, J., Lenhard, W., Vaahtoranta, E., & Suggate, S. (2018). Incidental vocabulary acquisition from listening to
stories: A comparison between read-aloud and free storytelling approaches. Educational Psychology, 38(5), 596-
616. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1363377
Lynch, L., Fawcett, A. J., & Nicolson, R. I. (2000). Computer-assisted reading intervention in a secondary school:
an evaluation study. British Journal of Educational Technology, 31(4), 333-348. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-
8535.00166
MacGinitie, W. H., MacGinitie, R. K., & Company, R. P. (1989). Gates-MacGinitie Reading Tests: Manual for scoring
and interpretation. Forms K and L, Levels 7/9 and 10/12. Riverside.
Makransky, G., Lilleholt, L., & Aaby, A. (2017). Development and validation of the multimodal presence scale for
virtual reality environments: a confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory approach. Computers in
Human Behavior, 72, 276-285. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.066
Manyak, P. C., Von Gunten, H., Autenrieth, D., Gillis, C., Mastre-O’Farrell, J., Irvine-McDermott, E., Blachowicz, C. L.
(2014). Four practical principles for enhancing vocabulary instruction. The Reading Teacher, 68(1), 13-23. https://
doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1299
Massonnié, J., Bianco, M., Lima, L., & Bressoux, P. (2019). Longitudinal predictors of reading comprehension in
French at first grade: Unpacking the oral comprehension component of the simple view. Learning and Instruction,
60, 166-179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2018.01.005
Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2010). Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test Fourth Edition (EOWPVT-4).
Novato: Academic Therapy Publications.
Marulis, L. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2013). How vocabulary interventions affect young children at risk: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 6(3), 223‑262. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2012.7
55591
McKeown, M. G., & Beck, I. L. (2014). Effects of vocabulary instruction on measures of language processing:
Comparing two approaches. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 520-530. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ecresq.2014.06.002
McKeown, M. G., Beck, I. L., Omanson, R. C., & Perfetti, C. A. (1983). The effects of long-term vocabulary
instruction on reading comprehension: A replication. Journal of Reading Behavior, 15(1), 3‑18. https://doi.
org/10.1080/10862968309547474
McNamara, D. S. (2004). SERT: Self-explanation reading training. Discourse Processes, 38(1), 1-30. https://doi.
org/10.1207/s15326950dp3801_1
McNamara, D. S., Levinstein, I. B., & Boonthum, C. (2004). iSTART: Interactive strategy training for active reading
and thinking. Behavior Research Methods, 36(2), 222-233. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195567
Meara, P., & Wolter, B. (2004). V-Links: Beyond vocabulary depth. In D. Albrechtsen, K. Haastrup & B. Henriksen
(Eds.), Angles on the English Speaking World (pp. 85-96). Museum Tusculanum Press.
Mize, M. K., Park, Y., & Moore, T. (2018). Computer-assisted vocabulary instruction for students with disabilities:
Evidence from an effect size analysis of single-subject experimental design studies. Journal of Computer Assisted
Learning, 34(6), 641-651. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcal.12272
Mowbray, C. T., Holter, M. C., Teague, G. B., & Bybee, D. (2003). Fidelity criteria: Development, measurement, and
validation. American Journal of Evaluation, 24(3), 315-340. https://doi.org/10.1177/109821400302400303
Nagy, W. E., & Scott, J. A. (2000). Vocabulary processes. In M. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, P. D. Pearson & R. Barr (Eds.),
Handbook of Reading Research (pp. 269-284). Muhwah, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Nagy, W. E., Anderson, R. C., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Learning word meanings from context during normal reading.
American Educational Research Journal, 24(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.2307/1162893
Nation, I. S. P. (2001). Learning Vocabulary in Another Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.
org/10.1017/CBO9781139524759
Nation, I. S. P. (2006). How large a vocabulary is needed for reading and listening? The Canadian Modern Language
Review/La Revue Canadienne Des Langues Vivantes, 63(1), 59-81. https://doi.org/10.1353/cml.2006.0049
National Reading Panel (2000). Report of the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of
the subgroups. National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health.

Social Education Research 54 | E. Dujardin, et al.

Neumann, M. M., & Neumann, D. L. (2014). Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Education
Journal, 42(4), 231-239. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-013-0608-3
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., & Elbro, C. (2019). Reading comprehension and reading comprehension difficulties. In D. A.
Kilpatrick, R. M. Joshi & R. K. Wagner (Eds.), Reading Development and Difficulties: Bridging the Gap Between
Research and Practice (pp. 83-115). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Oakhill, J., Cain, K., McCarthy, D., & Field, Z. (2012). Making the link between vocabulary knowledge and
comprehension skill. In A. Britt, S. Goldman & J.-F. Rouet (Eds.), From Words to Reading for Understanding (pp.
101-114). Routledge.
Ordóñez, C. L., Carlo, M. S., Snow, C. E., & McLaughlin, B. (2002). Depth and breadth of vocabulary in two languages:
Which vocabulary skills transfer? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 719. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-
0663.94.4.719
Ouellette, G., & Beers, A. (2010). A not-so-simple view of reading: How oral vocabulary and visual-word recognition
complicate the story. Reading and Writing, 23(2), 189-208. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-008-9159-1
Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it: The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading
comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 554-566. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
Ouellette, G., & Shaw, E. (2014). Oral vocabulary and reading comprehension: An intricate affair. L’Année
Psychologique, 114(4), 623-645. https://doi.org/10.4074/S0003503314004023
Paribakht, T. S., & Wesche, M. B. (1993). Reading comprehension and second language development in a
comprehension-based ESL program. TESL Canada Journal, 11(1), 9-29. https://doi.org/10.18806/tesl.v11i1.623
Pearson, P. D., Hiebert, E. H., & Kamil, M. L. (2007). Vocabulary assessment: What we know and what we need to
learn. Reading Research Quarterly, 42(2), 282-296. https://doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.42.2.4
Pellicer-Sánchez, A., & Schmitt, N. (2012). Scoring Yes-No vocabulary tests: Reaction time vs. nonword approaches.
Language Testing, 29(4), 489-509. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265532212438053
Penno, J. F., Wilkinson, I. A. G., & Moore, D. W. (2002). Vocabulary acquisition from teacher explanation and repeated
listening to stories: Do they overcome the Matthew effect? Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(1), 23-33.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.23
Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2002). The lexical quality hypothesis. In L.T. Verhoeven, C. Elbro & P. Reitsma (Eds.),
Precursors of Functional Literacy (pp. 67-86). John Benjamins Publishing.
Perfetti, C., McKeown, M., & Kucan, L. (2010). Decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension. In M. G. McKeown & L.
Kucan (Eds.), Bringing Reading Research to Life (pp. 291-303). Guilford Press.
Potocki, A., Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2016). Early cognitive and linguistic profiles of different types of 7-to 8-year-old
readers. Journal of Research in Reading, 40, 125-140. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9817.12076
Protopapas, A., & Skaloumbakas, C. (2007). Traditional and computer-based screening and diagnosis of reading
disabilities in Greek. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 40(1), 15-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221940704000102
01
Qian, D. (1999). Assessing the roles of depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge in reading comprehension.
Canadian Modern Language Review, 56(2), 282-308. https://doi.org/10.3138/cmlr.56.2.282
Qian, D. D., & Schedl, M. (2004). Evaluation of an in-depth vocabulary knowledge measure for assessing reading
performance. Language Testing, 21(1), 28-52. https://doi.org/10.1191/0265532204lt273oa
Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge
and reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling study. Child Development, 86(1), 159-175. https://doi.
org/10.1111/cdev.12292
Read, J. (2000). Assessing Vocabulary. Cambridge university press Cambridge.
Read, J. (2004). Plumbing the depths: How should the construct of vocabulary knowledge be defined. In P. Bogaards & B.
Laufer-Dvorkin (Eds.), Vocabulary in a Second Language: Selection, Acquisition, and Testing (pp. 209-227). John
Benjamins Publishing.
Richard, G. J., & Hanner, M. A. (2005). Language Processing Test-3. East Moline, IL: LinguiSystem.
Richter, T., Isberner, M.-B., Naumann, J., & Neeb, Y. (2013). Lexical quality and reading comprehension in primary
school children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 17(6), 415-434. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2013.764879
Robbins, C., & Ehri, L. C. (1994). Reading storybooks to kindergartners helps them learn new vocabulary words.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(1), 54-64. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.86.1.54
Rossbach, H. G., Tietze, W., & Weinert, S. (2005). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (German research version of the
test by LM Dunn & LM Dunn from 1997). Bamberg, Germany: Freie Universität Bamberg.
Rowsell, J., & Wohlwend, K. (2016). Free play or tight spaces? Mapping participatory literacies in Apps. The Reading

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 55 Social Education Research

 Teacher, 70(2), 197‑205. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.1490
Rutten, N., van Joolingen, W. R., & van der Veen, J. T. (2012). The learning effects of computer simulations in science
education. Computers & Education, 58(1), 136-153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2011.07.017
Scalise, K., & Gifford, B. (2006). Computer-based assessment in e-learning: A framework for constructing ‘‘intermediate
constraint” questions and tasks for technology platforms. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment,
4(6). https://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/article/view/1653/1495
Schaefer, B., Bowyer-Crane, C., Herrmann, F., & Fricke, S. (2015). Development of a tablet application for the
screening of receptive vocabulary skills in multilingual children: A pilot study. Child Language Teaching and
Therapy, 1-13. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659015591634
Schatz, P., & Browndyke, J. (2002). Applications of computer-based neuropsychological assessment. The Journal of
Head Trauma Rehabilitation, 17(5), 395-410. https://journals.lww.com/headtraumarehab/Abstract/2002/10000/
Applications_of_Computer_based_Neuropsychological.3.aspx
Schmitt, N. (2014). Size and depth of vocabulary knowledge: What the research shows. Language Learning, 64(4), 913-
951. https://doi.org/10.1111/lang.12077
Schmitt, N., & Schmitt, D. R. (1993). Identifying and assessing vocabulary learning strategies. Thai TESOL Bulletin,
5(4), 27-33. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED380994
Schrank, F., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2014). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-IV. Riverside Publishing.
Schwartz, M., & Katzir, T. (2012). Depth of lexical knowledge among bilingual children: The impact of schooling.
Reading and Writing, 25(8), 1947-1971. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-011-9308-9
Segalowitz, S. J., Segalowitz, N. S., & Wood, A. G. (1998). Assessing the development of automaticity in second
language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19(1), 53-67. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400010572
Sénéchal, M. (1997). The differential effect of storybook reading on preschoolers’ acquisition of expressive and
receptive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language, 24(1), 123-138. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000996003005
Sénéchal, M., Thomas, E., & Monker, J.-A. (1995). Individual differences in 4-year-old children’s acquisition
of vocabulary during storybook reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 218-229. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.218
Sénéchal, M., Whissell, J., Bildfell, A., Cain, K., Compton, D., & Parrila, R. (2017). Starting from home: Home
literacy practices that make a difference. In K. Cain, D. L. Compton & R. K. Parrila (Eds.), Theories of Reading
Development (pp. 383-408). John Benjamins Publishing.
Shute, V. J. (2008). Focus on formative feedback. Review of Educational Research, 78(1), 153-189. https://doi.
org/10.3102/0034654307313795
Silverman, R. (2007). A comparison of three methods of vocabulary instruction during read-alouds in kindergarten. The
Elementary School Journal, 108(2), 97-113. https://doi.org/10.1086/525549
Singleton, C. (2001). Computer-based assessment in education. Educational and Child Psychology, 18(3), 58-
74. http://lucid-research.net/documents/research/paper_jrnl_EducationalAndChildPsychology01_
ComputerBasedAssessmentInEducation.pdf
Smith, G. T. (2005). On construct validity: Issues of method and measurement. Psychological Assessment, 17(4), 396-
408. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.17.4.396
Snow, C. E. (1990). The development of definitional skill. Journal of Child Language, 17(3), 697-710. https://doi.
org/10.1017/S0305000900010953
Spencer, E. J., Goldstein, H., & Kaminski, R. (2012). Teaching vocabulary in storybooks: Embedding explicit
vocabulary instruction for young children. Young Exceptional Children, 15(1), 18‑32. https://doi.
org/10.1177/1096250611435367
Stetter, M. E., & Hughes, M. T. (2011). Computer assisted instruction to promote comprehension in students with
learning disabilities. International Journal of Special Education, 26(1), 88-100. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ921192
Stobart, G. (2008). Testing Times: The Uses and Abuses of Assessment. Routledge.
Stubbe, R. (2012). Do pseudoword false alarm rates and overestimation rates in Yes/No vocabulary tests change
with Japanese university students’ English ability levels? Language Testing, 29(4), 471-488. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0265532211433033
Sung, Y.-T., Chang, K.-E., & Huang, J.-S. (2008). Improving children’s reading comprehension and use of strategies
through computer-based strategy training. Computers in Human Behavior, 24(4), 1552-1571. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.chb.2007.05.009
Tannenbaum, K. R., Torgesen, J. K., & Wagner, R. K. (2006). Relationships between word knowledge and reading
comprehension in third-grade children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(4), 381‑398. https://doi.org/10.1207/

Social Education Research 56 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 s1532799xssr1004_3
Terzis, V., & Economides, A. A. (2011). The acceptance and use of computer based assessment. Computers &
Education, 56(4), 1032-1044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.017
Tilstra, J., McMaster, K., Van den Broek, P., Kendeou, P., & Rapp, D. (2009). Simple but complex: components of
the simple view of reading across grade levels. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(4), 383-401. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01401.x
Timmers, C., & Veldkamp, B. (2011). Attention paid to feedback provided by a computer-based assessment for learning
on information literacy. Computers & Education, 56(3), 923-930. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2010.11.007
Tseng, W.-T. (2016). Measuring English vocabulary size via computerized adaptive testing. Computers & Education,
97, 69-85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2016.02.018
Tseng, W.-T., Dörnyei, Z., & Schmitt, N. (2006). A new approach to assessing strategic learning: The case of self-
regulation in vocabulary acquisition. Applied Linguistics, 27(1), 78-102. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/ami046
Tunmer, W. E., & Chapman, J. W. (2012). The simple view of reading redux vocabulary knowledge and the independent
components hypothesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45(5), 453-466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219411432685
Van der Kleij, F. M., Feskens, R. C. W., & Eggen, T. J. H. M. (2015). Effects of Feedback in a computer-based learning
environment on students’ learning outcomes: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 85(4), 475‑511.
https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654314564881
Van der Kleij, F. M., Eggen, T. J. H. M., Timmers, C. F., & Veldkamp, B. P. (2012). Effects of feedback in a
computer-based assessment for learning. Computers & Education, 58(1), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.compedu.2011.07.020
Verhoeven, L., van Leeuwe, J., & Vermeer, A. (2011). Vocabulary growth and reading development across the
elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15(1), 8-25. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2011.536125
Vidal-Abarca, E., Martinez, T., Salmerón, L., Cerdán, R., Gilabert, R., Gil, L., Ferris, R. (2011). Recording online
processes in task-oriented reading with Read&Answer. Behavior Research Methods, 43(1), 179-192. https://doi.
org/10.3758/s13428-010-0032-1
Vloedgraven, J., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). The nature of phonological awareness throughout the elementary grades: An
item response theory perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 161-169. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.lindif.2008.09.005
Walker, M. (2015). The cure for early grades assessment difficulties? Take a tablet. International Developments, 5(5), 3.
https://research.acer.edu.au/intdev/vol5/iss5/3/
Wang, S., Jiao, H., Young, M. J., Brooks, T., & Olson, J. (2008). Comparability of computer-based and paper-and-
pencil testing in K-12 reading assessments A Meta-analysis of testing mode effects. Educational and Psychological
Measurement, 68(1), 5-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407305592
Wasik, B. A., & Bond, M. A. (2001). Beyond the pages of a book: Interactive book reading and language development in
preschool classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(2), 243. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-O663.93.2.243
Wasik, B. A., Hindman, A. H., & Snell, E. K. (2016). Book reading and vocabulary development: A systematic review.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 37, 39-57. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2016.04.003
Watkins, R. V., & DeThorne, L. S. (2000). Assessing children’s vocabulary skills: From word knowledge to word-
learning potential. Seminars in Speech and Language, 21, 235-246. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-2000-13197
Webb, S., & Chang, A. C.-S. (2015). How does prior word knowledge affect vocabulary learning progress in an
extensive reading program? Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 37(4), 651-675. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S0272263114000606
Wechsler, D. (1991). Manual for the Wechlser Intelligence Scale for Children (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Manual for the Wechlser Intelligence Scale for Children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: The
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2005a). Manuel de l’échelle d’intelligence de Wechsler pour enfants 4th édition [Manual for the Wechlser
Intelligence Scale for Children IV]. Paris: ECPA.
Wechsler, D. (2005b). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children Fourth Edition-Spanish. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment.
Wechsler, D. (2011). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (2nd ed.). Pearson. https://doi.org/10.1037/t15171-000
Wiig, E. H., & Secord, W. (1992). TOWK: Test of Word Knowledge. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Psychological Corporation.
Wiig, E., Secord, W., Semel, E., Boulianne, L., & Labelle, M. (2009). Évaluation clinique des notions langagières
fondamentales: Version pour francophones du Canada [Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals: French

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 57 Social Education Research

 Canadian version]. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Pearson Canada Assessment.
Wiig, E. H., Secord, W. A., & Semel, E. (2013). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals: CELF-5. Pearson.
Williams, K. T., & Pearson Education, I. (2018). EVT-3: Expressive Vocabulary Test-III. Pearson Assessments.
Wise, S. L., & Kong, X. (2005). Response time effort: A new measure of examinee motivation in computer-based tests.
Applied Measurement in Education, 18(2), 163-183. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324818ame1802_2
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson Tests of Achievement-III. Riverside
Publishing.

Social Education Research 58 | E. Dujardin, et al.

Appendix A

Table 1. Tools of Vocabulary Assessment According to Vocabulary’s Dimension Assessed, Tasks, Populations, and Language

Dimensions
Tests or subtests Authors (years) Tasks Age range Language
assessed

BILO* Matching word with multiple

Khomsi et al. (2007) Breadth, Receptive 3.0 to 15.11 years French
Vocabulary subtest choice pictures

Matching word with multiple

BPVS-3 Dunn et al. (2009) Breadth, Receptive 3.0 to 16.11 years English
choice pictures

CELF-4 Defining target words and

Kort et al. (2008) Depth, Expressive 5.0 to 16+ years Dutch
Word Classes subtest indicating connection between words

CEFL4 Defining target words and

Wiig et al. (2009) Depth, Expressive indicating connection between words 4.0 to 16.11 years French-Canadian
Word Classes subtest

CELF-5* Indicating word related by

Wiig et al. (2013) Depth, Expressive 5.0 to 21.11 years English
Word Classes subtest semantic features

DIBELS-6* Good and Kaminski

Word Use Depth, Expressive Correctly use words in sentences 3.0 to 11.11 years English
(2002)
Fluency subtest

DIBELS* Dufour-Martel and Good Depth, Expressive

Word Use Correctly use words in sentences 3.0 to 11.11 years French
(2009)
Fluency subtest

Groupe coopératif en
orthophonie-Région
EOWPVT Breadth, Expressive Naming of pictures 2.0 to 18.11 years French
Laval, Laurentides,
Lanaudière (1995)

Brownell Spanish bilingual/

EOWPVT Breadth, Expressive Naming of pictures 4.0 to 12.11 years
(2001) English

Martin and Brownell

EOWPVT-4 Breadth, Expressive Naming of pictures 2.0 to 70+ years English
(2010)

Williams and Pearson

EVT-3* Breadth, Expressive Naming of pictures 2.6 to 90+ years English
Education (2018)

Choose the word of the sentence

Gates McGinitie. MacGinitie et al. Depth, Receptive the closest to the meaning 10.0 to 18.11 years English
Vocabulary subtest (1989) of a target word

KABC Kaufman and Kaufman Breadth, Receptive Matching word with 3.0 to 12.11 years French
Vocabulary subtest (2008) multiple choice pictures

KABC-2 Kaufman et al. Matching word with multiple

Breadth, Receptive 3.00 to 18.11 years German
Vocabulary subtest (2014) choice pictures

KABC-2 Kaufman et al. Matching word with multiple

Breadth, Receptive 3.00 to 18.11 years English
Vocabulary subtest (2018) choice pictures

L2MA-2* Chevrie-Muller et al. Naming of pictures

Breadth, Expressive 7.0 to 11.11 years French
Vocabulary subtest (2011) and categorization of words

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 59 Social Education Research

 Dimensions
Tests or subtests Authors (years) Tasks Age range Language
assessed
LPT-R
Multiple Meanings Richard and Hanner Depth, Expressive Defining words in different contexts 5.0 to 11.11 years English
and Attributes (2005) and Receptive Describing attributes of names
subtests

Matching word with Spanish,

PPVT Dunn et al. (1986) Breadth, Receptive 2.6 to 17.11 years
multiple choice pictures bilingual English

Matching word with

PPVT Dunn et al. (1993) Breadth, Receptive 2.6 to 18.00 years French
multiple choice pictures

Matching word with

PPVT Rossbach et al. (2005) Breadth, Receptive 4.0 to 8.11 years German
multiple choice pictures

Matching word with

PPVT-IV* Dunn and Dunn (2007) Breadth, Receptive 2.6 to 90+ years English
multiple choice pictures

TACL-Revised Carrow-Woolfolk Selecting the picture that represent

Words classes and Breadth, Receptive 3.0 to 9.11 years English
(1985) the meaning of words or sentence
relations subtest

TACL Carrow-Woolfolk Selecting the picture that represent

Words classes and Breadth, Receptive 3.0 to 21.11 years French, Canadian
(1985) the meaning of words or sentence
relations subtest

TOWK Defining a target word; Matching

Expressive and Wiig and Secord Depth and Breadth, expressions with multiple choice 5.0 to 17.11 years English
Receptive (1992) Expressive pictures; Matching word with
vocabulary multiple choice synonyms

WASI Wechsler (2011) Depth, Expressive Defining a target word 6.0 to 90.11years English
Vocabulary subtest

WISC-IV Naming of pictures

Expressive Wechsler (2003) Depth, Expressive 6.0 to 16.11 years English
Defining a target word
Vocabulary subtest

WISC-IV Naming of pictures

Expressive Wechsler (2005a) Depth, Expressive 6.0 to 16.11 years French
Defining a target word
Vocabulary subtest

WJ-III Breadth, Naming of pictures,

Picture Vocabulary Woodcock et al. (2001) Expressive and 2.0 to 90+ years English
Identifying pictures objects
subtest Receptive

WJ-IV Breadth, Naming of pictures,

Picture Vocabulary Schrank et al. (2014) Expressive and 2.0 to 90 + years English
Identifying pictures objects
subtest Receptive

Notes: BILO = Bilan Informatisé de Language Oral [Computerized Checkup for oral language]; BPVS = British Picture Vocabulary Scale; CELF =
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals; DIBELS = Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills; EOWPVT = Expressive One-Word
Picture Vocabulary test; EVT = Expressive Vocabulary Test; KABC = Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children; L2MA-2 = Batterie Language Oral,
Language Ecrit, Mémoire, attention [Oral language, written, language, memory, attention]; LPT = Language Processing Test; PPVT = Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test; TACL = Test for Auditory Comprehension of language; TOWK = Test of Word knowledge; WASI = Wechsler Abbreviated Scales of
Intelligence; WISC = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children; WJ = Woodcock Jonhson. * indicates that a digital version can be available

Social Education Research 60 | E. Dujardin, et al.

Appendix B

Table 1. Overview of Studies Characteristics Included in the Current Review for Instruction of Vocabulary

Participants Main Findings

Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size

Beck and Examining the effect Between-subjects, Experimental group

98 Text Talk, receptive
Mckeown of vocabulary quasi-experimental, learned more words for
kindergarteners Vocabulary skills, English
(2007) instruction pretest and posttest kindergartners (d = 1.17),
and first-graders (sophisticated prior knowledge
(Study 1) words) control group design for first-graders (d = 0.744)

Kindergartners: Benefit
from more rich instruction
Examining the effect for verbal test (d = 2.09)
Beck and Text Talk, receptive Within-subject,
76 of two amounts of and for pictures test
Mckeown Vocabulary skills, quasi-experimental,
kindergarteners instruction English (d = 2.71)
(2007) prior knowledge, pretest and
and first-graders (More Rich vs. First grade: Benefit from
(Study 2) Verbal skills posttest design
Rich instruction) more rich instruction for
verbal (d = 2.09) and for
pictures (d = 2.71) tests

Experimental group
Examining the effect Reading and Vocabulary Within-subject and better performances for
of vocabulary Skills; Semantic decision between-subjects vocabulary tests, but no
Beck et al. 66 instruction latency, sentence English comparison of for semantic decision
(1982) fourth-graders (vocabulary vs. verification latency, experimental and or sentence verification
language arts) story recall control group (marginal effect),
or story recall

Develop digital
print awareness
Emergent writing skills
Beschorner Examining the role of with digital technology.
35 Four- Writing, speaking,
and iPads as instructional Within-subject and Benefit from connecting,
and five-year-old listening and print English
Hutchison tools in two observational design reading, writing, listening
children awareness apps
(2013)* preschool classrooms and speaking.
Social learning with
more interaction
between children

Higher scores on posttest

(d = 1.21).
Effect of grade, and gender
Examining the effect with higher performances
43 of pretesting, Within-subject, for girls on gains.
Biemiller and kindergarteners, reading books, Story books, between-subject, Higher scores for instructed
Boote (2006) 37 first graders, and word explanations expressive word English quasi-experimental, words (d = 0.53), with
(Study 1) 32 second on word meaning knowledge pretest and posttest additional gain to
graders acquisition during control group design repeated reading.
instruction Effect of reading book
times according to
grades, with benefit for
kindergarten, and Grade 1

Effect of pretests and

posttest-delayed on gains
(d = 2.97), larger
for Grade 1.
Examining the effect Gains between pretest and
28 of instruction Within-subject,
Biemiller posttest (d = 2.30),
kindergarteners, procedures (intensive, Story books, between-subject,
and Boote larger for Grade 1.
37 first graders, word and transfer) expressive word English quasi-experimental, Gains
(2006) between posttest and
42 second on the percentage knowledge pretest and posttest posttest-delayed
(Study 2) (d = 0.26).
graders and number of word control group design Benefit from repeated oral
meanings acquired reading of stories combined
with explanations of words
and reviews of
words explained

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 61 Social Education Research

 Participants Main Findings
Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size
Video-based multimedia:
Examining the Best learning performance
effects of multimedia and most positive emotion
material (static text, for verbalizers.
video, animated and Between-subject, Video-based and animated/
Learners’ emotions,
Chen and Sun 160 fifth-graders interactive) on quasi-experimental, interactive multimedia:
learners’ performances Mandarin
(2012)* learning performance pretest and More appropriate for
multiple-choice tests
and emotions posttest design visualizers.
according to Partial correlation of
individual cognitive negative emotion on
styles (verbal, visual) learning performances
for visualizers
Exploring the effect
of words
presentation without Between-subject, Benefit from both read-
Christ and 56 direct instructions Receptive vocabulary quasi-experimental, aloud and teacher
English
Chiu (2018) kindergarteners (control, read-aloud, knowledge, books story pretest and conversations for depth
teacher conversations, posttest design word knowledge
or both) on depth
word knowledge

Explanatory research
Exploring the viability Increased engagement,
with both a multiple
Couse and of tablet computer Drawing apps on interest and ability to
Chen (2010)* 41 preschoolers English single-subject
by drawing tablet with stylus use tablets with age and
and qualitative
in early education through sessions
research design

Expressive definition:
Benefit from extended
Comparing the Storybook read-aloud, instruction compared to
effect of embedded expressive definition, embedded (d = 1.34),
Within-subject,
(breadth), extended context/full knowledge, which in turn higher than
Coyne et al. 42 experimental,
kindergarteners (depth) and incidental context/partial English for incidental (d = 0.87).
(2009) posttest and
instructions of knowledge, receptive Receptive definition:
posttest-delayed design
vocabulary definition, receptive benefit from extended
knowledge vocabulary skills instruction (d = 0.70)
which in turn higher than
for incidental (d = 0.24)

Initial receptive vocabulary

knowledge predicts target
Investigating the Interactive story read word definition
direct and extended aloud, receptive (d between 1.06 to 2.44)
vocabulary instruction vocabulary skills, Between-subject,
Coyne et al. 80 Benefit from direct and
kindergarteners on target words and listening comprehension, English quasi-experimental
(2010) extended vocabulary
transfer of expressive and depth control group design instruction (d = 1.71)
generalized vocabulary knowledge, Moderate effect of transfer
language and literacy metalinguistic awareness for listening
comprehension (d = 0.42)

Investigating a
storybook intervention
with explicit Between-subject, Benefit from explicitly
Receptive and
Coyne et al. 64 vocabulary instruction expressive quasi-experimental, taught vocabulary for
vocabulary English
(2004) kindergarteners on vocabulary pretest and posttest, children at risk with low
skills, prior knowledge
development in control group design receptive vocabulary
children at risk of
reading difficulty
Exposure to print,
general cognitive
Cunningham 34 fourth-, Examining the abilities, phonological Print exposure contributes
and 33 fifth- contribution of print coding, spelling, Between-subject
English to the development of
Stanovitch and 67 exposure to children’s vocabulary knowledge, design verbal abilities
(1991) sixth-graders verbal abilities verbal fluency, receptive
vocabulary skills,
general information

Examining the effect Story Book, multiple Increased vocabulary after

Elley 157 of stories read aloud Between-subject,
choice vocabulary test listening to story book
(1989) 7-years-old by teacher (without English pretest and
(matching picture, (3 times), especially
(Study 1) children explanation) on synonym) posttest design for low vocabulary groups
vocabulary growth

Social Education Research 62 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 Participants Main Findings
Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size

Examining the effect

of mobile learning Mobile apps: Language, Benefit from mobile
Fernández- 34 students Between-subject,
platform on learning math, environmental, learning platform for basic
López et al. from 4 to 20 Spanish pretest and
skills in student awareness, autonomy learning skills (association,
(2013)* years old posttest design
with special and social exploration, puzzle, sorting)
education needs

Investigating the
effect of different
types of text
features (i.e., Texts, comprehensive
macrostructure, Benefit from conceptually
Herman et al. 309 skills, expressive and Within-subject,
microstructure, English between subject design elaborated version text for
(1987) eighth-graders receptive,
concept elaborations) word knowledge
vocabulary skills
on reader’s incidental
acquisition of
vocabulary
knowledge

Advantages of iPads:
Exploring and Creativity in idea
understand the presentation, engagement
Literacy activities on
Hutchison 23 viability of using Within-subject, in activities,
apps (e.g., reading English
et al. (2012)* fourth-graders iPads to support and exploratory design individualization
skills, drawing)
enhance literacy of book selection.
instruction Development of digital
literacy skills

Examining the Benefit from higher reading

acquisition of Within-subject and ability and prior knowledge
vocabulary Prior knowledge, reading
Jenkins et al. 112 fifth-graders between-subject, for vocabulary knowledge.
knowledge through ability, vocabulary English
(1984) quasi-experimental Effect of the number of
incidental learning knowledge design exposure context on
of word meanings vocabulary knowledge
from context

Comparison of the
instructional strategies Benefit from both
of semantic mapping semantic features analysis
Johnson et al. 36 fourth to six and semantic feature Word knowledge, Within and between and semantic mapping
English
(1982) grade classes analysis with a comprehensive test experimental design compared to context
contextual approach for general
of vocabulary vocabulary acquisition
acquisition

Investigating a Web- Science text, vocabulary

Johnson- based application Benefit from 3D-Readers
knowledge, reading
Glenberg 6 seventh-, for comprehension for constructing answers
comprehension, English Within-subject design
(2007) 14 sixth-graders instruction (3D- to open-ended questions
metacognitive strategy,
(Study 1)* Readers) on poor over eight sessions
prior knowledge
comprehenders

Investigating a Web-
based application
for comprehension Science text, vocabulary
Johnson- Benefit from vocabulary,
instruction (3D- knowledge, reading
Glenberg 11 third- and in self-reported
to eighth-graders Readers) on students comprehension, English Within-subject design
(2007) metacognitive strategy
with attention deficit metacognitive strategy,
(Study 2)* use after six sessions
disorder/attention prior knowledge
deficit hyperactivity
disorder

Investigating a Web- Science text, vocabulary

Johnson- based application Benefit from vocabulary
37 fourth- knowledge, reading
Glenberg for comprehension skill, and in the quality
to seventh- comprehension, English Within-subject design
(2007) instruction (3D- of questions generated
graders metacognitive strategy,
(Study 3)* Readers) on summer over four sessions
prior knowledge
school students

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 63 Social Education Research

 Participants Main Findings
Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size

Elaborated words: Benefit

Examining the from repeated storybook
influence of storybook Within-subject, reading for the acquisition
reading exposure on between-subjects, of vocabulary (d = 1.22);
the acquisition of
Justice et al. 57 kindergartners vocabulary Storybook, priori pretest and posttest, gain more important for
for at-risk English
(2005) vocabulary knowledge quasi-experimental low vocabulary skills
children according to comparison group (d = 1.34).
individual differences design Non-elaborated words:
and elaboration of no effect of storybook
word in context reading (d = 0.53)

Examining the effect

of story delivery Receptive vocabulary, Acquisition of vocabulary
Lenhart et al. Within-subjects,
(read aloud vs. phonological working between pretest and
(2018) 83 preschoolers German pretest and posttest,
told freely) on the memory, speech posttest (d = 0.37).
(study 1) experimental design
acquisition of comprehension No effect of story delivery
vocabulary

Younger children: Benefit

Examining the from reading aloud story
effect of story reading Receptive vocabulary, Within-subjects, for the acquisition of
Lenhart et al. delivery (read aloud phonological working pretest and posttest, vocabulary (d = 0.13).
(2018) 48 preschoolers vs. told freely) on the German
memory, speech quasi-experimental Oldest children: Benefit
(study 2) acquisition of comprehension design from told freely story for
vocabulary the acquisition of
according to age vocabulary (d = 0.20)

Benefit from intervention

Developing the strong Storybooks, word (d = 1.71), more important
Loftus and intervention knowledge, listening Within-subject, for initial high
Coyne 124 according to the comprehension, between-subject,
English vocabulary skills
(2013) kindergarteners number of storybook metalinguistic awareness, Quasi-experimental Strong effect of
(Study 1) reading, types of priori vocabulary design intervention on transfer
intervention activities. knowledge measures (ds = 0.73-0.81)

Examining the Benefit from Tier 2

effectiveness of vocabulary intervention
whole-class for measures of literacy
Loftus and Storybooks, word Within-subject,
vocabulary skills (ds = 0.40-0.69)
Coyne 43 recognition, context between-subject,
instruction according English Both Tier 1 ad Tier 2
(2013) kindergarteners questions, expressive Quasi-experimental
to a multi-tier intervention in at-risk
(Study 2) definition design
approach in at-risk student decrease
and not-at risk differences with not-at risk
students student (ds = 0.70-0.72)

Evaluating the
effectiveness of a Benefit from training for
computer-based Reading speed and Within-subject, pretest reading (d = 0.49), spelling
Lynch et al. 8 children in literacy support accuracy, reading and posttest, (d = 0.18), and literacy
British
(2000)* secondary school system (RITA) in comprehension, quasi-experimental, standard scores (d = 0.39)
children with Spelling, vocabulary group control design Increase of enthusiasm and
disadvantaged engagement in children
literacy skills

Benefit from repetition

and interactive conditions
for recognition of word
Examining the effects meanings (ds = 0.35, 0.44),
of two approaches Storybook, meaning Within-subject, context integration
McKeown to vocabulary recognition,
131 experimental, (ds = 0.27, 0.38),
and Beck instruction, repetition comprehension, English
kindergartners pretest and and production
(2014) and interactive, production, posttest design (ds= 0.44, 0.70).
and a control group context integration Benefit from interactive
in children instruction for context
integration (d = 0.21), and
production (d = 0.26)

Investigating the Within-subject, Benefit from instruction

relationship between Reading, vocabulary, between-subject,
McKeown Fourth-graders vocabulary for vocabulary knowledge,
instruction accuracy, fluency, English quasi-experimental,
et al. (1983) in two schools accuracy, fluency, and
and reading text comprehension pretest and comprehension
comprehension posttest design

Social Education Research 64 | E. Dujardin, et al.

 Participants Main Findings
Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size

Investigating
157 third-, Within-subjects, Increase of word
incidental learning Expository or narrative
Nagy et al. 100 fifth-, between-subjects, knowledge for the read text.
of word meanings texts, vocabulary English
(1987) and 160 quasi-experimental Benefit from easy text
from context during knowledge, reading skills
seventh-graders design on word knowledge
normal reading

Paradigmatic knowledge
in Spanish predicts
paradigmatic knowledge in
Vocabulary knowledge English, when breadth
Examining the (depth and breadth), in both languages
relationship between communicative skills,
38 fourth- is controlled.
Ordonez paradigmatic and paradigmatic or Spanish, Within-subject
and 50 fifth- Communicative skills both
et al. (2002) syntagmatic word superordinate knowledge, English design
graders in English and Spanish
knowledge in syntagmatic or only when breadth in both
bilingual children nonhierarchical languages is controlled.
knowledge Deep word knowledge
depends on English
vocabulary knowledge
Benefit from listening
Evaluating the effect Within-subjects, stories for vocabulary
of repeated listening Stories, vocabulary between-subjects, growth, with both
Penno et al. to stories and
47 first-graders knowledge, English quasi-experimental, frequency and explanation
(2002) teacher’s explanation generalization words pretest and from teachers, especially
on children’s posttest design in children with low
vocabulary growth vocabulary abilities
Better knowledge from
words heard in a story
than words unheard.
Within-subjects,
Examining the effect Vocabulary gains more
Stories, vocabulary between-subjects,
Robbins and 51 of listening to stories important for children
knowledge, word heard English quasi-experimental,
Ehri (1994) kindergarteners on kindergarteners’ with high-vocabulary
or not heard in story pretest and
vocabulary growth knowledge.
posttest design Gain with at least 4
exposures to word for
vocabulary growth

Examining the effect Benefit from repeated

of didactic techniques listening to storybook
used during storybook Within-subjects, for both receptive
30 three- reading (single between-subjects, and expressive
Sénéchal Vocabulary skills,
and 30 four- reading, English quasi-experimental, vocabulary growth.
(1997) prior knowledge
year-old children repeated-reading, pretest and Answering questions
questioning) on posttest design better for expressive
young children’s vocabulary than for
vocabulary growth receptive vocabulary

Assessing how Benefit from answering to

Prior knowledge,
children’s Within-subjects, questions during reading for
storybook,
Sénéchal vocabulary skills between-subjects, comprehensive vocabulary
32 4-year-old comprehensive
et al. (1995) influence vocabulary vocabulary, English quasi-experimental, and production vocabulary.
children production
(Study 1) growth according to vocabulary, home pretest and Benefit from prior
literacy,
listening to stories posttest design knowledge for
socioeconomic status
(listening, labeling) production vocabulary

Assessing how Benefit from prior

children’s vocabulary Prior knowledge, knowledge for
Within-subjects,
skills influence storybook, understanding of
Sénéchal between-subjects,
48 4-year-old vocabulary growth comprehensive new words
et al. (1995) English quasi-experimental,
children according to vocabulary, production Benefit from active
(Study 2) pretest and
conditions of listening vocabulary, home literacy, participation during
posttest design
to stories (listening, socioeconomic status listening to story for
pointing, labeling vocabulary growth

Comparing 3
approaches to Storybook, Benefit from both analytic
teaching vocabulary socioeconomic status, Within-subjects, and anchored for receptive
Silverman during storybook prior vocabulary between-subjects,
94 vocabulary
(2007) reading at the knowledge (expressive English quasi-experimental,
kindergarteners (ds = 0.67, 1.02); for oral
(Study 1) beginning of and receptive), general pretest and vocabulary
instruction: vocabulary, home posttest design (ds = 0.85, 1.19)
contextual vs. analytic language
vs. anchored

Volume 3 Issue 1|2022| 65 Social Education Research

 Participants Main Findings
Authors Objectives Variables, language skills Language Research design
characteristics and Effect size

Investigating the
effectiveness of 3 Storybook, Benefit from both
approaches to socioeconomic status, Within-subjects, analytic and anchored for
Silverman teaching vocabulary prior vocabulary between-subjects, oral vocabulary
(2007) 50 first-graders during storybook knowledge (expressive English quasi-experimental, (ds = 0.58, 0.94),
(Study 2) reading after 6 and receptive), general pretest and but no significant
months: contextual vocabulary, home posttest design effect on receptive
vs. analytic language vocabulary
vs. anchored

Examining the effects

of Computer Assisted Within-subjects,
Strategy Teaching Reading comprehension, Benefit from CASTLE
between-subjects,
Sung et al. and Learning reading ability, narrative for using strategies
130 sixth-graders Mandarin quasi-experimental,
(2008)* Environment and expository texts, and for comprehension
pretest and
(CASTLE) on reading strategies only for expository texts
posttest design
students with different
reading disabilities

Examining the effect

of interactive book Storybooks, receptive Between-subjects, Benefit from interactive
reading on language
Wasik and 124 4-years- vocabulary skills, quasi-experimental, book reading intervention
and literacy English
Bond (2001) olds children receptive and expressive pretest and on receptive and expressive
development of language skills posttest design language and literacy skills
children from low
socioeconomic status

Investigating in
which English foreign Learning gain more
language learners important for high level
according to group (d = 0.98)
vocabulary sizes Vocabulary knowledge, Between-subjects, Vocabulary gain more
Webb and 60 sixteen-year- learned through prior knowledge, English, quasi-experimental, important for high level
Chang (2015) old students reading 20 graded graded readers Mandarin pretest and group (d = 1.12) for Term 1
readers and whether (Term 1 or Term 2) posttest design Vocabulary gain more
vocabulary learning important for high- and
gains according to intermediate level
reading text group for Term 2
difficulty levels

Social Education Research 66 | E. Dujardin, et al.